Numeratica — financial planning calculations

roth_conversion

Multi-year Roth conversion ladder (bracket-fill, IRMAA-aware) vs. a no-conversion baseline, with a year-by-year schedule and after-tax comparison. Optional pay-tax-from-external-funds.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`end_age`	No
`tax_year`	No
`birth_year`	No
`current_age`	No
`roth_balance`	No
`annual_return`	No
`filing_status`	No
`irmaa_tier_cap`	No
`state_tax_rate`	No
`target_bracket`	No
`external_return`	No
`conversion_end_age`	No
`tax_deferred_balance`	No
`other_ordinary_income`	No
`pay_tax_from_external`	No
`external_taxable_balance`	No

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: multi-year schedule, after-tax comparison, bracket-fill, IRMAA-awareness, and optional pay-tax-from-external-funds. It lacks detail on output format or data sources, but is sufficient for a simulation tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a key optional feature. Every word adds value; no redundancy or filler.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given 16 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what the output schedule contains, how parameters interact, or what assumptions are made. The complexity demands more detail than provided.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description mentions only one parameter ('pay tax from external funds') explicitly. With 16 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain the meaning or usage of most inputs, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names alone.

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 explicitly states the tool performs a multi-year Roth conversion ladder analysis with bracket-fill and IRMAA-awareness, comparing against a no-conversion baseline. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'roth_vs_traditional' and 'retirement_backdoor_roth' by specifying the multi-year ladder aspect.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for planning a Roth conversion ladder, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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

All Numeratica — financial planning calculations 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

C2.3/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have nearly identical generic descriptions (e.g., all tax tools say 'Tax ...'), making it hard to distinguish them. Overlapping categories like tax_estimate vs tax_estimated_tax or social_security vs social_security_couple_claim add confusion. With 76 tools, an agent will struggle to pick the correct one.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent snake_case pattern with domain prefixes (e.g., tax_, retirement_, education_). However, a few outliers like 'annuity', 'tvm', 'longevity' break the pattern, and some names are overly long (e.g., 'retirement_withdrawal_sequencing'), but overall the convention is predictable.

Tool Count1/5

76 tools is far excessive for typical MCP servers (ideal is 3-15). Even for a broad financial calculator, this many endpoints raises concerns about maintenance, discoverability, and redundancy. Many tools have identical response structures, suggesting possible consolidation.

Completeness4/5

The server covers a wide range of financial planning domains: retirement, tax, education, insurance, mortgages, equity compensation, etc. Critical lifecycle operations like calculations for Social Security, Medicare, Roth conversions, and tax estimates are present. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no estate planning tool), but the surface is largely comprehensive.

roth_conversion

Input Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources