Moltline Personal Suite

Savings Goal

savings_goal

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compute months to reach a savings target at a monthly contribution. FREE.

Optionally compounds interest monthly. Administrative math only — not financial advice. Typical input {"target": 10000, "monthly_saving": 400, "annual_rate_pct": 4} returns {"months": 24, "years": 2.0, "final_balance": 10021.94, "interest_earned": 421.94, "note": "..."}.

Use when a target amount and a monthly contribution are known. Not for allocating income across categories (budget_split) and not for loan repayment, which the business server's loan_payment computes. Errors: on invalid, missing, or malformed input this tool never raises a protocol error — it returns {"error": ""} (for example {"error": "target and monthly_saving must be > 0"}). Every call is read-only and idempotent, so after correcting the input it is always safe to retry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`target`	Yes	The savings goal; must be greater than 0.
`monthly_saving`	Yes	Contribution per month; must be greater than 0.
`annual_rate_pct`	No	Annual interest rate percentage, 0 to 100, compounded monthly. Default 0.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by stating 'Every call is read-only and idempotent', 'never raises a protocol error', returns an error object, and includes disclaimers like 'FREE' and 'not financial advice'. No contradictions with annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is fairly concise, front-loading the main purpose. All sentences are informative and avoid redundancy. It could be slightly more structured, but overall it is efficient and clear.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It covers error handling, idempotency, read-only nature, usage guidance, sibling differentiation, and includes an example. The description is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description includes a typical input example but does not add new semantic details beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It meets the baseline but does not go significantly beyond.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Compute months to reach a savings target at a monthly contribution.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by stating that it is not for budget_split or loan_payment, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Use when a target amount and a monthly contribution are known'), provides exclusions ('Not for allocating income across categories... not for loan repayment'), and mentions that the tool is safe to retry after errors, guiding the agent on correct invocation.

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

All Moltline Personal Suite 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

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Each tool targets a distinct task: budget_split for income allocation, tip_split for bill splitting, savings_goal for target saving, etc. There is slight potential confusion between budget_split and tip_split as both involve splitting money, but their inputs and purposes (monthly income vs. a single bill) are clearly differentiated. No two tools have overlapping functionality.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (budget_split, tip_split, savings_goal, list_products, get_free_skill, etc.). The only minor inconsistency is that two tools use 'split' (budget_split, tip_split), which is fine as they refer to different kinds of splitting. Overall, the naming is predictable and clear.

Tool Count5/5

With 9 tools, the count is perfectly scoped for a personal suite covering personal finance (budget_split, tip_split, savings_goal), product browsing (list_products, get_free_skill, get_full_product, get_full_skill), time utilities (countdown_days), and learning (spaced_repetition_plan). Each tool serves a clear purpose without bloat or triviality.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the advertised areas: personal finance budgeting, goal saving, bill splitting, product discovery, countdowns, and spaced repetition. A minor gap is the lack of an update or delete tool, but this is acceptable since the server is primarily read-only and informational. The product tools provide a reasonable lifecycle (list, get free, get full, get skill).

Resources

Need Help?