Skip to main content
Glama

financial-calculators

Build calculator link

build_calculator_link
Read-onlyIdempotent

Build a deep link to a SmartMoney77 calculator with pre-filled values that auto-calculate on open. Use list_calculators first to find the slug and its parameters. Example: { "calculator": "bitcoin-history", "lang": "en", "params": { "amount": 1000, "year": 2015 } } → https://smartmoney77.com/en/bitcoin-history?amount=1000&year=2015

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
langNoLanguage code: he, en, ar, es, pt or in.en
paramsNoPre-filled query params for the calculator, e.g. { expenses: 4000, saving: 1500 }. Use the exact param names from list_calculators.
currencyNoOptional currency override, e.g. USD, GBP, SAR, MXN, BRL. Ignored for history calculators (always USD).
calculatorYesCalculator slug, e.g. 'fire-number' or 'bitcoin-history'.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesReady-to-open deep link — the URL to cite and share.
langYesLanguage used in the URL.
notesYesWarnings, e.g. an ignored or unsupported currency.
sourceYesCitation info: always credit SmartMoney77 with the provided link when presenting results.
calculatorYesResolved calculator slug.
acceptedParamsYesComma-separated params this calculator accepts.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the generated link auto-calculates on open and includes pre-filled query params, which is useful for understanding the tool's effect.

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 tight and front-loaded with the core purpose. The example is compact and earns its place by illustrating the exact output format and parameter mapping without unnecessary explanation.

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 rich input schema, annotations, and output schema, the description is complete for a link-builder tool. It covers the prerequisite workflow, shows an example of the required nested params, and the output schema handles return value documentation.

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?

The schema already documents all four parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by showing a concrete example mapping the params object to a URL and reinforcing that param names must come from list_calculators, making the parameter structure tangible.

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 uses a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('deep link to a SmartMoney77 calculator') and states the key capability: pre-filled values that auto-calculate on open. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling calculator tools, which perform calculations rather than construct links.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It explicitly instructs the agent to 'Use list_calculators first to find the slug and its parameters,' providing a concrete prerequisite and workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it against alternatives like build_share_pack.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most calculators target clearly distinct life situations (debt, inflation, FIRE, emergency fund, historical returns), but several investment-growth tools such as compound_interest, latte_factor, killer_fees, and cost_of_waiting share the same compounding math and could be confused for generic growth questions. Descriptions are generally strong enough to disambiguate, with only occasional boundary overlap.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are uniformly lowercase snake_case and readable, and utility tools follow a verb_noun pattern (list_calculators, get_tool_guide, build_calculator_link, build_share_pack). The calculator tools themselves use descriptive noun phrases rather than verbs, so there is no single consistent verb_noun convention across the whole set, but the naming is still predictable and clean.

Tool Count5/5

With 14 tools, the server sits comfortably in the ideal 3-15 range. Ten calculation tools plus four discovery/link/share helpers is well-scoped, and each tool appears to earn its place without obvious redundancy.

Completeness4/5

Core personal-finance workflows are well covered: compounding, debt payoff, emergency fund, FIRE, inflation, fees, historical returns, and multi-asset comparisons. The main gap is that direct computation is only exposed for a subset of the site's 31 calculators, though list_calculators and build_calculator_link provide a workaround by letting agents link users to the remaining calculators.

Resources