decisions

Roth vs Traditional

roth_vs_traditional

Read-onlyIdempotent

Roth vs Traditional — Compares Roth vs Traditional retirement contributions: the break-even retirement tax rate and which to choose. Returns a one-line verdict plus a link to the full interactive page with the numbers pre-filled. Accepts only numbers and enums.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`age`	No	A non-negative number (US dollars unless the field name says otherwise).
`year`	No	Tax year, e.g. 2026. Omit to use the current tax year.
`accountType`	No	One of: 401k, ira.
`yearsToGrow`	No	A non-negative number (US dollars unless the field name says otherwise).
`filingStatus`	Yes	One of: single, married_joint, married_separate, head_of_household.
`annualReturnRate`	No	Decimal fraction, e.g. 0.07 for 7%. Must be between 0 and 1 (do not pass a whole-number percent).
`currentGrossIncome`	Yes	A non-negative number (US dollars unless the field name says otherwise).
`afterTaxContribution`	No	A non-negative number (US dollars unless the field name says otherwise).
`expectedRetirementIncome`	Yes	A non-negative number (US dollars unless the field name says otherwise).

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, indicating safe, repeatable computation. The description adds that output is a one-line verdict plus a link, and input restrictions. No contradiction. Provides moderate extra context.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. First sentence states purpose and output, second clarifies input types. Front-loaded and efficient.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 9-param tool with 3 required and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain how to interpret results beyond 'one-line verdict' or emphasize required parameters. Schema compensates, but description could be richer.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description only adds 'Accepts only numbers and enums', which is redundant. Description does not provide additional meaning beyond schema fields.

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 compares Roth vs Traditional retirement contributions and returns a break-even tax rate and verdict. It distinguishes from sibling tools which cover different financial topics like filing status, freelance rates, job offers, etc.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only says it compares Roth vs Traditional and accepts numbers/enums. No guidance on prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.

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

All decisions tools Inspect

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

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct financial decision (filing status, freelancer rate, job offer, raise/bonus, Roth vs Traditional), with no overlap in purpose.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent pattern of descriptive snake_case phrases, clearly indicating the decision type.

Tool Count4/5

Five tools is a reasonable number for a decision-support server, covering common personal finance scenarios without being excessive or too thin.

Completeness3/5

While core decisions are covered, there are notable gaps such as mortgage vs. rent, debt payoff strategies, or investment comparisons, which limit completeness for the full domain.

Resources

Need Help?