Skip to main content
Glama

payment_plan_optimizer

[Taxonomy X.180 — baseline response (public data only)] Optimize a payment plan structure for a patient balance.

WHEN TO USE: User has a balance and wants to structure a payment plan. Pass balance_usd and months.

WHEN NOT: If user may qualify for charity care — run financial_assistance_finder first.

EXAMPLES:

  • 12-month plan for $3K balance: {"balance_usd":3000,"months":12}

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": {
      "balance_usd": "<balance_usd>"
    },
    "name": "payment_plan_optimizer"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
monthsNo
balance_usdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It hints at non-destructive behavior via 'public data only' and the nature of 'optimize', but it does not explicitly state whether the tool modifies state, requires special permissions, or has side effects.

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 compact and well organized into purpose, usage, non-usage, and example. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or extraneous content.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the essential context: when to use, when not, and an example. It does not detail the output format, but since there is no output schema and the purpose is straightforward, this is adequate.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Both parameters are named in the description and an example is provided. The schema already defines types and constraints, and the description adds a concrete usage example, helping clarify the expected values beyond the bare schema.

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 verb 'optimize' and the resource 'payment plan structure for a patient balance', and it provides a concrete example. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from financial_assistance_finder by specifying when not to use it.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT sections give clear conditions, including a specific alternative tool (financial_assistance_finder). The example further illustrates the expected input format.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources