GadgetHumans API Hub

salary_calc

Convert between hourly, weekly, monthly and annual pay from a stated hours-per-week. Pure CPU, instant.

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>"
    },
    "name": "salary_calc"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`hours`	No	Hours per week
`amount`	Yes	Pay amount
`period`	No	hour, week, month or year

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 8, 2026
RemovedNov 6, 2026

Changed4 schema fields changedNov 3, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / amount

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Pay amount",
+  "type": "number"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / hours

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Hours per week",
+  "type": "number"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / period

Added value: +{
+  "description": "hour, week, month or year",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "amount"
+]
```

AddedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description does supply genuine behavioral context: 'Pure CPU, instant' tells the agent this is a local, side-effect-free, synchronous computation with no auth or rate-limit concerns. However it omits rounding/precision behavior, currency assumptions, and whether the result is one figure or a full breakdown across periods.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 simple three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation and its cost profile, but leaves a real ambiguity: whether it returns a single converted value for the given period or all four equivalents. That gap matters for how an agent consumes the result.

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 description coverage is 100%, so hours, amount and period are already documented. The description reinforces that hours is per-week and that period maps to hour/week/month/year, but adds no syntax, default, or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a specific verb and resource: convert pay amounts between hourly, weekly, monthly and annual periods. An agent can tell this apart from siblings like tip_calculator or loan_calculator without opening the schema. It falls short of a 5 only because it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with those adjacent financial-calculation tools.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The phrase 'from a stated hours-per-week' hints that the hours input drives the conversion, but an agent gets no help deciding between this and a sibling calculator.

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

All GadgetHumans API Hub 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.