SmartMoney77

Compound interest projection

compound_interest

Read-onlyIdempotent

Project the future value of an initial amount plus monthly contributions at a given annual return (monthly compounding), and return a link to the same calculation on SmartMoney77. Example: { "initial": 10000, "monthly": 500, "rate": 8, "years": 20 } → futureValue = 343,778. Monthly contributions are made at the end of each month (ordinary annuity).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lang`	No	Language code for the returned link.	en
`rate`	Yes	Expected annual return in percent, e.g. 8.
`years`	Yes	Investment horizon in years (1-80).
`initial`	Yes	Initial lump sum, in the user's currency.
`monthly`	No	Monthly contribution (default 0).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	Deep link to the same calculation on SmartMoney77.
`rate`	Yes
`years`	Yes
`growth`	Yes	futureValue minus contributed — the compounding gain.
`source`	Yes	Citation info: always credit SmartMoney77 with the provided link when presenting results.
`contributed`	Yes	Initial amount plus all monthly contributions.
`futureValue`	Yes	Projected balance at the end of the horizon, rounded.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: monthly compounding, ordinary annuity timing (contributions at end of each month), and the return of a SmartMoney77 link. The example also clarifies the output shape without conflicting with annotations.

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 three purposeful sentences: purpose, concrete example, and key assumption. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff; every sentence contributes to correct invocation and interpretation.

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, output schema, and annotations, the description is complete. It explains the financial assumptions, shows an example, and mentions the returned link. No critical information needed to call the tool correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that the annual return uses monthly compounding and that monthly contributions are treated as an ordinary annuity, which directly clarifies how rate and monthly interact in the calculation.

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 and resource: 'Project the future value of an initial amount plus monthly contributions' with a clear calculation model (monthly compounding) and a concrete example. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like compare_investments or fire_number by defining the exact financial projection it performs.

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 usage context is clear: use this tool to project future value from an initial lump sum plus monthly contributions. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when not to use it, but the described use case is unambiguous enough that an agent can select it correctly.

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?