Skip to main content
Glama

Delegum

by com.delegum

calcular_hipoteca

Read-only

Calcula una hipoteca española (sistema francés): cuota mensual, total de intereses, ratio cuota/ingresos. Soporta tipo fijo, variable (Euríbor + diferencial) y mixta. Para una consulta de compra completa con impuestos y gastos, usa "consulta_compra_vivienda".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entradaYesEntrada aportada en euros (recomendable ≥20%)
euriborNoEuríbor actual en % (para "variable"/"mixta")
diferencialNoDiferencial del banco en % (para "variable"/"mixta")
plazo_aniosYesPlazo en años
interes_anualNoTipo fijo anual en % (para "fijo" o fase fija de "mixta")
tipo_hipotecaYes"fijo", "variable" o "mixta"
precio_viviendaYesPrecio de la vivienda en euros
ingresos_mensualesNoIngresos netos mensuales para el ratio de endeudamiento

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds behavioral context (calculates, not modifies) and details about supported mortgage types, enhancing transparency beyond annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with key outputs and supported types. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description lists expected outputs (monthly payment, total interest, ratio) and supported mortgage types. Absence of output schema is partly compensated by listing outputs, but could mention return format or limitations.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters with detailed info. The description adds no new parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool calculates a Spanish mortgage (French system) and lists key outputs (monthly payment, total interest, payment-to-income ratio). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'consulta_compra_vivienda' for complete purchase queries.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance to use 'consulta_compra_vivienda' for a complete purchase consultation, but does not elaborate on other exclusions or alternative tools beyond that.

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

All Delegum toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

There are many tools with overlapping domains (e.g., multiple retirement calculators, home buying calculators), but detailed descriptions and explicit guidance on when to use comprehensive vs. specific tools help clarify. However, the sheer number (49) still creates potential confusion for an agent.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent convention: infinitive verb or noun prefix (calcular, comparar, consulta) followed by descriptive noun phrase in snake_case. No mixed styles or irregularities.

Tool Count3/5

49 tools is high but justifiable given the broad scope of Spanish financial/legal calculations. It leans toward the heavy side but remains within a manageable range for a comprehensive server.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide spectrum of personal finance: income, taxes, housing, inheritance, self-employment, investments, etc. Only minor gaps exist (e.g., no separate tool for rental income beyond the alquiler tools, but included in IRPF).

Resources