salary_to_hourly_calculatorSalary to Hourly Calculator (and Back) — Convert an annual salary to an hourly wage or an hourly rate back to a yearly salary. Set your hours and weeks to see weekly, biweekly, and monthly pay too.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | Yes | ||
| hourlyRate | Yes | ||
| annualSalary | Yes | ||
| hoursPerWeek | Yes | ||
| weeksPerYear | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the conversion directions and the extra weekly/biweekly/monthly outputs, but it does not explain the mode parameter or the requirement to provide both annualSalary and hourlyRate regardless of mode, which is a behavioral gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no fluff, but the first sentence largely repeats the tool's title, adding redundancy. The remaining text efficiently adds the conversion and customization details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 5-required-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, this description is insufficient. It fails to clarify how mode selects the conversion direction or why all parameters are required when only one of annualSalary/hourlyRate is relevant per mode.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for annual salary, hourly rate, hours, and weeks. The mode parameter is only implied through the two conversion directions, not named, so coverage is incomplete but strong for most parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool converts annual salary to hourly wage and vice versa, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling calculators by explicitly covering both directions and additional pay periods.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Set your hours and weeks' gives context for customizing the inputs, and the dual-direction conversion implies usage for either direction. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling salary calculators or state when to avoid this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many calculators occupy overlapping conceptual spaces, such as 'ai_roi_calculator' vs 'ai_automation_payback_calculator' and 'llm_self_host_vs_api_calculator' vs 'ai_build_vs_buy_calculator'. The boundaries between debt payoff, savings goal, and drawdown tools are also fuzzy, making it easy for an agent to select the wrong tool despite detailed descriptions.
Every tool follows the same <topic>_calculator pattern with lowercase snake_case, making the naming highly predictable and consistent. Even acronyms and numbers fit the pattern, so there is no mixing of conventions.
122 tools is an extreme number for a single MCP server, far exceeding the 50+ threshold for a severe mismatch. The tools span unrelated domains like AI costs, pet food, concrete, pizza dough, and turkey cooking, creating an unfocused kitchen-sink surface that overwhelms an agent's selection process.
The set covers many common calculator categories such as finance, construction, health, and AI costs, but several staple calculators are missing (e.g., BMI, tip, discount, simple interest, currency conversion). The AI cost cluster is over-saturated while other everyday calculations are absent, leaving minor but noticeable gaps.