Compound Mint Money Calculator

Inflation calculator (future cost and purchasing power)

calculate_inflation

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use when a user asks what inflation does to money, e.g. "what will $100 be worth in 10 years with inflation?", "how much will a $50,000 salary need to be in 20 years?" or "how much purchasing power does cash lose at 3% inflation?". Future cost of something priced today and the purchasing power of today's money in the future (in today's dollars), plus how long prices take to double. Inflation defaults to 3% a year, an assumption, not a forecast. Example: $100 kept as cash for 10 years at 3% buys what $74.41 buys today.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "amount": "<amount>",
      "years": "<years>"
    },
    "name": "calculate_inflation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`years`	Yes	Years ahead.
`amount`	Yes	Amount in USD, e.g. 100.
`inflation_rate`	No	Yearly inflation in percent (default 3).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description's real addition is epistemic: the 3% default is flagged as 'an assumption, not a forecast,' and the return framing ('in today's dollars') is spelled out. It stops short of stating error conditions or behavior for out-of-range inputs, though the schema already bounds those.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the trigger phrase, then the outputs, then the default assumption, then a worked example, which is the right order. Three quoted user phrasings are slightly redundant with one another and cost a little length, but nothing is wasted outright.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the full burden of return-value explanation and does so: three named outputs plus a numeric example. For a three-parameter, annotated, read-only calculator, an agent has everything needed to select and call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with ranges, defaults, and examples, making a baseline of 3 appropriate. The description adds only marginal meaning beyond that, chiefly that the inflation percentage is an assumption, and does not explain the distinction between the amount and the returned future cost.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (calculate inflation) and enumerates exactly what it returns: future cost of something priced today, purchasing power of today's money in today's dollars, and time to double prices. The worked example ($100 at 3% for 10 years buys what $74.41 buys today) makes the output concrete rather than abstract.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Opens with an explicit trigger: 'Use when a user asks what inflation does to money,' followed by three natural-language phrasings an agent can pattern-match against. It does not name when NOT to use it or point to a sibling, which matters here because rule_of_72 covers overlapping doubling-time ground and calculate_compound_interest covers growth math.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Compound Mint Money Calculator tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?