financial-calculators

Inflation erosion check

inflation_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate how much purchasing power cash loses to inflation over time, and what nominal amount keeps the same buying power. Example: { "amount": 100000, "rate": 3, "years": 10 } → realValue ≈ 74,409 and equivalentNeeded ≈ 134,392.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lang`	No	Language code for the returned link.	en
`rate`	No	Annual inflation rate in percent (default 3).
`years`	Yes	Number of years (1-80).
`amount`	Yes	Amount of money held today.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	Deep link to the same calculation on SmartMoney77.
`lost`	Yes	amount minus realValue.
`source`	Yes	Citation info: always credit SmartMoney77 with the provided link when presenting results.
`realValue`	Yes	Today's-money purchasing power of the amount after the period.
`lostPercent`	Yes	Purchasing power lost, in percent (one decimal).
`equivalentNeeded`	Yes	Nominal amount needed later to buy what `amount` buys today.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

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 known. The description adds a concrete example showing the approximate realValue and equivalentNeeded outputs, which reveals expected behavior and return shape beyond the annotations. It stops short of explaining the formula or rounding behavior.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a single clarifying example. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy.

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?

The presence of an output schema plus full parameter descriptions in the schema means the description only needs to convey the tool's purpose and illustrate the core calculation. The example supplies the missing return-value context, making the tool effectively complete for an agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents amount, rate, years, and lang. The description's example reinforces the meaning of amount, rate, and years, but adds no major semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it calculates purchasing power loss from inflation and the nominal amount needed to preserve buying power. This clearly distinguishes it from growth-oriented siblings like compound_interest, though it does not explicitly name or exclude any sibling tool.

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?

The phrase 'cash loses to inflation over time' provides clear context for when to invoke this tool: when estimating the erosion of cash value or required future nominal amounts. It does not state exclusions or explicitly compare with alternatives, but the scenario is unambiguous.

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?