calculators
Server Details
Retirement & FIRE calculators: Monte Carlo wealth plans, Coast FIRE, Swiss pension & property tax.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.6/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.
Each tool targets a distinct financial calculation: Coast FIRE, FIRE target, Swiss property tax, portfolio returns, and wealth plan projection. There is no overlap or ambiguity between their purposes.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in lowercase snake_case (e.g., calculate_coast_fire, get_portfolio_returns). The verbs are descriptive and the pattern is uniform.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for a financial calculators domain. Each tool covers a specific calculation without being redundant or excessive.
The tools cover core FIRE calculations and Swiss property tax, but missing common calculators like savings rate or inflation adjustment. However, the set is coherent and sufficient for the stated purpose.
Available Tools
5 toolscalculate_coast_fireCInspect
Compute the Coast FIRE milestone — the capital required today such that, with no further contributions, a portfolio compounds to the user's retirement target by their target age.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| currency | No | USD | |
| current_age | Yes | ||
| inflation_rate | No | ||
| current_savings | Yes | ||
| monthly_savings | No | ||
| expected_return_rate | No | ||
| portfolio_volatility | No | ||
| safe_withdrawal_rate | No | ||
| target_retirement_age | Yes | ||
| annual_expenses_in_retirement | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral assumptions (e.g., compounding frequency, tax treatment, inflation handling). It only states the end result without explaining how parameters like expected return or volatility affect the calculation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but too brief for a tool with 10 parameters. It omits critical information that would justify its length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 10 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how parameters interact, or what assumptions are made, making it very difficult for an AI agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the 10 parameters. The agent must infer parameter roles solely from names, which is insufficient for a complex financial calculator.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly explains the tool's purpose: computing the Coast FIRE milestone, with a concise definition of what that means. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'calculate_fire_target' by the specific concept of Coast FIRE.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, particularly 'calculate_fire_target'. No context for prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
calculate_fire_targetBInspect
Estimate the savings target needed for Financial Independence / Early Retirement. Runs Monte Carlo simulation and returns the probability the portfolio survives the planning horizon.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| years | Yes | Planning horizon in years. | |
| currency | No | USD | |
| annual_expense | Yes | Projected annual spending in retirement (in selected currency). | |
| inflation_rate | No | ||
| apply_inflation | No | ||
| current_savings | No | Current liquid + invested assets. | |
| portfolio_volatility | No | Annual return standard deviation %. | |
| portfolio_return_rate | No | Expected real annual return %. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that it runs a Monte Carlo simulation and returns a survival probability. No annotations exist, so it carries the full burden. However, it does not mention the output format or any side effects. Basic behavioral traits are covered but not comprehensively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no extra words. It front-loads the core purpose and then briefly explains the method. Highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite a complex Monte Carlo simulation with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It omits the output format (e.g., is it a number or object?) and key assumptions. The agent lacks sufficient information to correctly interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 63%, but the description adds no parameter-specific details. It does not explain how parameters like 'inflation_rate' or 'apply_inflation' affect the simulation. The agent gains minimal extra meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool estimates the savings target for Financial Independence/Retirement using Monte Carlo simulation. It mentions returning survival probability. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'calculate_coast_fire' and could be more precise about the form of the target.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'calculate_coast_fire' or 'project_wealth_plan'. There are no prerequisites or conditions for use stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
compute_swiss_property_taxAInspect
Estimate the Swiss cantonal real-estate capital gains tax (Grundstückgewinnsteuer) for a property sale. Covers all 26 cantons with holding-period adjustments and Ersatzbeschaffung (replacement-residence) deferral. Educational estimate; commune surcharges and value-enhancing-improvement deductions are not modeled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| canton | Yes | Canton code (ZH, BE, ..., JU). | |
| sale_price | Yes | ||
| years_held | Yes | ||
| purchase_price | Yes | ||
| ersatzbeschaffung | No | Reinvest proceeds into a replacement primary residence. | |
| ersatzbeschaffung_amount | No | Amount reinvested (caps the tax deferral). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the estimate is educational, does not model commune surcharges or value-enhancing improvements, and includes the Ersatzbeschaffung deferral. This provides adequate behavioral context for an AI agent to understand the tool's scope and limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured paragraph with no fluff. It efficiently states the purpose, scope, key features, and limitations, making it easy for an AI agent to quickly grasp the tool's functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of Swiss cantonal tax and 6 parameters without an output schema, the description covers most essential aspects. However, it does not hint at the output format (e.g., estimated tax amount in CHF), which would be helpful. Still, it provides sufficient context for most use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 50% description coverage (3 of 6 parameters described). The description adds value by explaining the overall purpose and the Ersatzbeschaffung deferral, which clarifies the boolean and amount parameters. For undocumented parameters (sale_price, purchase_price, years_held), their meaning is clear from the tool name and description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool estimates Swiss cantonal real-estate capital gains tax for property sales, covering all 26 cantons. It specifies key features like holding-period adjustments and replacement-residence deferral, and distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on other financial calculations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (for property sale tax estimates) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools. However, the sibling tools are unrelated, so the context is clear. It also notes the limitations (educational estimate, no commune surcharges or improvement deductions), which helps set expectations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_portfolio_returnsAInspect
Return RetireCrunch's historical portfolio return profiles for a currency. Each profile is a (return %, volatility %) pair derived from real index data — useful for grounding the assumptions in calculate_fire_target / project_wealth_plan in something defensible rather than guessing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| currency | Yes | Currency code; the historical return profiles are denominated in this currency. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It reveals the output structure (return%, volatility%) and data source (real index data) but does not discuss data freshness, caching, or error states. The behavioral coverage is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise, delivering the core action, output format, and usage context in two sentences. It is front-loaded with the purpose and efficiently structured, with no superfluous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one enum parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the output (return%, volatility% pairs), purpose (grounding assumptions), and data authenticity (real index data). It leaves out details like time periods or number of profiles, but is reasonably complete for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the parameter's schema description already explains the currency code and its purpose. The description adds that the profiles are 'return%, volatility% pairs', which is contextual but does not significantly enhance the parameter semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns historical portfolio return profiles (return%, volatility% pairs) for a given currency, derived from real index data. It explicitly distinguishes its purpose from sibling tools like calculate_fire_target by noting its value as a data source for them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage context: it is useful for grounding assumptions in calculate_fire_target and project_wealth_plan. It explains why one would use this tool (defensible assumptions vs. guessing). However, it does not mention when not to use it or list explicit alternatives, missing some guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
project_wealth_planAInspect
Run RetireCrunch's full year-by-year Wealth Plan projection for a household. Models earned income, pensions, expenses, portfolio growth, optional growth→income phase switch, mortgage amortization, optional property sale, and region-aware tax (US uses 2026 federal+state brackets; other regions use a flat rate). Returns a compact summary with 5-year milestones by default, or the full annual array when yearly_detail=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| region | No | Country regime — drives tax model (US uses bracket-based federal/state; others a flat rate). | GENERIC |
| currency | No | USD | |
| start_year | Yes | First year of the projection (typically the current year). | |
| yearly_detail | No | When true, include the full year-by-year array in the response. When false (default), return a compact summary plus 5-year milestones. | |
| household_type | No | single | |
| inflation_rate | No | Annual inflation %. | |
| retirement_year | Yes | Year retirement begins. | |
| current_mortgage | No | ||
| current_property | No | ||
| current_liquidity | No | ||
| income_yield_rate | No | Annual yield % during the income phase. | |
| estimated_tax_rate | No | Pre-retirement effective tax rate (%). | |
| plan_horizon_years | No | Total years to project from start_year. | |
| property_sale_year | No | ||
| current_living_costs | No | Annual general living expenses today. | |
| portfolio_volatility | No | Return std dev %; 0 = deterministic. | |
| current_earned_income | No | Annual gross earned income today. | |
| portfolio_return_rate | No | Annual real portfolio return %. | |
| portfolio_switch_year | No | Year to switch from growth to income phase. Defaults to retirement_year if omitted. | |
| property_sale_enabled | No | ||
| current_other_expenses | No | Annual other expenses today. | |
| current_housing_expenses | No | Annual housing expenses today. | |
| portfolio_switch_enabled | No | ||
| post_retirement_tax_rate | No | Post-retirement effective tax rate (%). | |
| property_sale_destination | No | liquidity | |
| current_investment_portfolio | No | ||
| partner_survivor_expense_factor | No | ||
| partner_early_death_years_before_end | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool models various financial factors, uses region-aware tax, and returns either a compact summary or full array. It does not mention auth needs or rate limits, but the computational nature is clear, and no contradictory hints exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured paragraph that starts with the main action, then details what is modeled, and ends with output options. Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate given the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 28 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It explains the output format (compact summary vs. full array) but does not describe the structure or fields within the output. Additional guidance on parameter interactions would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 57%, and the description provides high-level context but does not add per-parameter documentation beyond what the schema already offers. It mentions modeled elements but does not map them to specific parameters, so value added over schema is limited.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool runs a full year-by-year wealth plan projection using RetireCrunch. It lists specific modeled items (earned income, pensions, etc.) and output options, distinguishing it from sibling tools like calculate_coast_fire which focus on specific calculations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (for full projections) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. However, the sibling context makes the purpose clear, and the description provides enough context for an agent to infer appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!