SmartMoney77

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

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lang`	No	Language code: he, en, ar, es, pt or in.	en
`params`	No	Pre-filled query params for the calculator, e.g. { expenses: 4000, saving: 1500 }. Use the exact param names from list_calculators.
`currency`	No	Optional currency override, e.g. USD, GBP, SAR, MXN, BRL. Ignored for history calculators (always USD).
`calculator`	Yes	Calculator slug, e.g. 'fire-number' or 'bitcoin-history'.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	Ready-to-open deep link — the URL to cite and share.
`lang`	Yes	Language used in the URL.
`notes`	Yes	Warnings, e.g. an ignored or unsupported currency.
`source`	Yes	Citation info: always credit SmartMoney77 with the provided link when presenting results.
`calculator`	Yes	Resolved calculator slug.
`acceptedParams`	Yes	Comma-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?

With readOnlyHint and idempotentHint already present, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the generated link auto-calculates on open and is a deep link to a URL. The example also demonstrates the output format. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 and front-loaded: the main purpose appears first, followed by a necessary prerequisite and a concrete example. Every sentence contributes; the example earns its place because it clarifies the expected URL format.

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 description covers the prerequisite lookup step, the behavioral expectation (auto-calculate), and the output shape via example. Since an output schema exists, return-value explanation is not required. The tool is simple enough that no critical calling information is missing.

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 giving a concrete example that maps params to query-string form and by stressing the need to use exact parameter names from list_calculators, which goes beyond the schema's field-level help.

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 states a specific action ('Build a deep link') and a specific resource ('SmartMoney77 calculator with pre-filled values that auto-calculate on open'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling calculator tools, which perform calculations rather than constructing 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?

The description explicitly instructs the agent to 'Use list_calculators first to find the slug and its parameters,' giving a clear prerequisite. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it with alternatives like build_share_pack, but the core usage context is clear.

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

All SmartMoney77 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 tools target clearly distinct financial scenarios or actions, and the descriptions make boundaries easy to identify. The only slight overlaps are compare_investments vs historical_investment_return and build_calculator_link vs build_share_pack, but these are differentiated by single-asset vs multi-asset and simple link vs full share package.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming convention is mixed: some tools use verb_noun patterns like build_calculator_link and list_calculators, while others use noun-phrase calculator names like fire_number, latte_factor, and emergency_fund. The names are readable, but there is no single consistent convention across the set.

Tool Count5/5

14 tools is a well-scoped size for a personal-finance calculator server. Each calculator tool has a distinct purpose, and the discovery, linking, and sharing utilities round out the set without feeling bloated or sparse.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers major personal-finance needs: compounding, historical returns, debt payoff, inflation, emergency funds, FIRE, fees, and small expenses. Minor gaps exist since the server mentions 31 calculators but only directly computes a subset; however, list_calculators and build_calculator_link mitigate this by enabling access to the broader catalog.

Resources

Need Help?