Student loan calculator client and server side from freedailypro
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| principal | Yes | ||
| annualRatePct | Yes | ||
| monthlyPayment | Yes | ||
| firstPaymentDate | No | Optional date the first payment is due, as YYYY-MM-DD. Adds firstPaymentDate, lastPaymentDate and payoffDate to the result. It only labels the result; the months, interest and totals do not change. A payment day of 29 to 31 moves to the last day of shorter months. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / firstPaymentDateAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional date the first payment is due, as YYYY-MM-DD. Adds firstPaymentDate, lastPaymentDate and payoffDate to the result. It only labels the result; the months, interest and totals do not change. A payment day of 29 to 31 moves to the last day of shorter months.",
+ "pattern": "^\\d{4}-\\d{2}-\\d{2}$",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds no behavioral context such as calculation assumptions, required payment semantics, or what the result represents.
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 a single sentence, but the phrase 'client and server side from freedailypro' is irrelevant implementation noise rather than useful front-loaded context. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication.
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?
With four parameters, three required, no output schema, and only 25% schema description coverage, the description should explain what the calculator returns and how the required inputs are used. It gives no such detail, leaving the agent unable to predict outputs or calculation behavior.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 25%, with firstPaymentDate described in the schema but principal, annualRatePct, and monthlyPayment undocumented. The description provides no parameter meaning, and only the obvious parameter names help infer usage.
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?
The description essentially restates the tool name as 'Student loan calculator' and adds implementation provenance ('client and server side from freedailypro') that does not clarify what the tool computes. It does not distinguish this from siblings like calculate_loan or converters_amortization.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus calculate_loan, converters_amortization, or other finance calculators. The student-loan domain is implied only by the name.
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.