Skip to main content
Glama

Moltline Personal Suite

by com.moltlinestudio

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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYesThe savings goal; must be greater than 0.
monthly_savingYesContribution per month; must be greater than 0.
annual_rate_pctNoAnnual interest rate percentage, 0 to 100, compounded monthly. Default 0.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds behavioral details: error handling ('never raises a protocol error — returns error object'), safety of retry, and the disclaimer that it is 'administrative math only — not financial advice.' This provides rich context that annotations alone do not.

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 (approx. 150 words) and well-structured: purpose, optional feature, example, usage guidance, error handling, idempotency. Every sentence serves a clear purpose. It is front-loaded with the main action.

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 simplicity (3 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers all needed aspects: input requirements, output format (via example), error behavior, idempotency, and differentiation from siblings. Nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description includes a typical example and mentions optional compounding, but does not add semantic meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., target >0, monthly_saving >0, annual_rate_pct 0-100). The example is helpful but not a semantic enhancement.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Compute months to reach a savings target at a monthly contribution.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools budget_split and loan_payment, making the tool's unique scope evident.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when a target amount and a monthly contribution are known.' It also clearly states what not to use it for (income allocation, loan repayment) and names the alternative tools (budget_split, loan_payment), giving the agent strong decision-making context.

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 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target distinct purposes (budgeting, counting days, skills, finances, scheduling, bill splitting). However, budget_split and savings_goal both deal with personal finance and could be confused by an agent, though their descriptions clarify the difference. Also, get_free_skill, get_full_skill, and get_full_product are related but clearly distinguished by access level and scope.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names use a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., budget_split, countdown_days, savings_goal). The only minor deviation is that some verbs are adjectives (free, full) rather than actions, but the pattern is still predictable and readable.

Tool Count5/5

With 9 tools, the set is well-scoped for a personal finance and productivity assistant. Each tool addresses a distinct, useful function without overwhelming the agent or leaving trivial gaps.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers key personal tasks: budgeting, savings goals, event countdowns, spaced repetition, bill splitting, and product exploration. A minor gap is the lack of a tool for expense tracking or recurring bills, but the domain is well-covered for the stated purpose.

Resources