SmartMoney77

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

A4/5.0

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 behavioral detail by showing the exact calculation: inputs map to months covered, target size, gap, and time to close. The example makes the tool's computational behavior transparent without contradicting the 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 compact: two sentences that front-load the purpose and then give a concrete example. Every element earns its place, and the JSON example is a highly efficient way to communicate the input-output relationship.

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?

For a read-only financial calculator with an output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains the core calculation, the meaning of the outputs, and a full example; the output schema covers return values, and the annotations cover side-effect safety.

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 covers all five parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is solid. The description adds further semantic value by demonstrating how expenses, savings, contribution, and target interact in a concrete example, which clarifies the relationship between parameters and outputs.

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 states a precise verb and resource ('Calculate how many months of expenses current savings cover') and uses an example to illustrate the computation. It is clearly about emergency fund coverage and not vague, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling calculators such as fire_number or compound_interest.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The purpose is clear, so an agent can infer this tool is for emergency-fund planning, but the description gives no explicit 'when to use this vs alternatives' guidance. It does not mention any sibling tool or exclusion criteria, leaving the routing decision to inference from the name and example.

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?