financial-calculators

Emergency fund coverage

emergency_fund

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate how many months of expenses current savings cover, the target emergency fund size, the gap, and how long it takes to close it. Example: { "expenses": 3000, "savings": 6000, "contribution": 500, "target": 6 } → 2 months covered, target 18,000, gap 12,000, 24 months to go.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lang`	No	Language code for the returned link.	en
`target`	No	Target coverage in months (default 6).
`savings`	No	Current emergency savings (default 0).
`expenses`	Yes	Monthly living expenses.
`contribution`	No	Monthly amount added to the fund (default 0).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`gap`	Yes	Amount still missing (0 when the target is reached).
`url`	Yes	Deep link to the same calculation on SmartMoney77.
`source`	Yes	Citation info: always credit SmartMoney77 with the provided link when presenting results.
`targetAmount`	Yes	expenses × target months.
`monthsCovered`	Yes	savings / expenses, one decimal.
`monthsToTarget`	Yes	Months to close the gap at the given contribution; 0 when reached, null when no contribution was given.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description's safety burden is low. It adds a helpful numeric example that clarifies the calculation, especially the relation among contribution, gap, and months to close. However, it does not disclose the 'returned link' behavior hinted at by the lang parameter or address the zero-contribution edge case.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a compact illustrative example. No filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The five parameters are well documented in the schema, constraints and defaults are present, and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. The main omissions are the zero-contribution edge case and the fact that the tool returns a link, though these are partly covered by schema and output schema hints.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by demonstrating how expenses, savings, contribution, and target interact in a concrete example, making the computed relationships explicit beyond what the schema alone provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies a specific verb and resource: it calculates months of coverage, target fund size, gap, and time to close the gap. It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling calculators such as fire_number or cost_of_waiting, so it misses the top score.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling calculators, and no exclusions or prerequisites are provided. The intended use is only implied by the calculation described, which is weaker than an explicit routing or context statement.

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

All financial-calculators 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

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

Need Help?