Skip to main content
Glama

Moltline Merchant Maths

by com.moltlinestudio

Charge To Net

charge_to_net
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compute the gross price to charge so you net a target after fees. FREE.

'Charge X to receive Y' after percentage + fixed processor fees. Typical input {"net_target": 100, "pct_fee": 2.9, "fixed_fee": 0.30} returns {"charge": 103.4, "fee": 3.4, "net": 100.0}.

The inverse of processor_fees - solves for gross from a target net. Use when the payout is the fixed requirement. Not when the price is already set. Errors: on invalid, missing, or malformed input this tool never raises a protocol error — it returns {"error": ""} (for example {"error": "net_target > 0 and pct_fee < 100 required"}). Every call is read-only and idempotent, so after correcting the input it is always safe to retry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pct_feeNoProcessor percentage fee, below 100, e.g. 2.9 for 2.9%. Default 2.9.
fixed_feeNoProcessor fixed fee per charge. Default 0.30.
net_targetYesThe amount you want to receive after fees; must be greater than 0.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds crucial error handling behavior: 'never raises a protocol error — it returns {"error": ...}' and states that every call is read-only and idempotent, making retry behavior safe. This fully discloses behavioral traits.

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 concise (9 lines) and well-structured: purpose statement, usage guidance, example, error handling, and safety notes. Every sentence adds value; there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (3 parameters, 1 required, output schema present), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage, error behavior, idempotency, and read-only nature. No gaps remain.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds value by providing a concrete example of typical input and output, showing how parameters combine to produce a result. This helps the agent understand parameter interplay beyond the 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 starts with 'Compute the gross price to charge so you net a target after fees.' This is a specific verb-resource combination. It also contrasts with the sibling 'processor_fees' by stating it is the inverse, clearly distinguishing the tool.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use ('Use when the payout is the fixed requirement') and when not to use ('Not when the price is already set'). It also references the sibling tool 'processor_fees' as the inverse, providing clear alternatives.

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

All Moltline Merchant Maths toolsInspect
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

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool serves a distinct pricing/financial calculation: gross-up from net (charge_to_net), stacking discounts (discount_stack), installment schedules (installment_plan), invoice totals (invoice_total), processor fee breakdown (processor_fees), and proration (proration). Even closely related tools like charge_to_net and processor_fees are clearly inverses, with descriptions explicitly noting when to use one versus the other.

Naming Consistency4/5

All six tool names use a clear noun or noun phrase with underscores, following a consistent pattern (e.g., charge_to_net, discount_stack, installment_plan). The only minor deviation is that some names are verb-first (charge_to_net) while others are noun-first (processor_fees), but the pattern is predictable and readable.

Tool Count5/5

With six tools, the set is well-scoped for a merchant/pricing MCP server. Each tool covers a common financial calculation need (fees, discounts, installments, invoicing, proration) without bloat. The count is lean yet sufficient for its domain.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core merchant calculations: gross-up, fee breakdown, discount stacking, installment plans, invoice totaling, and proration. Minor gaps include missing currency conversion or tax jurisdiction handling, but for a focused pricing/fee calculator the coverage is solid.

Resources