SmartMoney77

FIRE number & years to freedom

fire_number

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate the financial-independence (FIRE) target from monthly expenses using the 4% rule, plus how many years of saving are needed. Example: { "expenses": 4000, "saving": 1500, "current": 50000 } → fireNumber 1,200,000.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lang`	No	Language code for the returned link.	en
`rate`	No	Expected annual real return in percent (default 5 — same as the site's field default).
`saving`	Yes	Amount saved/invested per month.
`current`	No	Current invested savings (default 0).
`expenses`	Yes	Monthly living expenses in retirement.
`withdrawalRate`	No	Safe withdrawal rate in percent (default 4 = the 4% rule).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	Deep link to the same calculation on SmartMoney77.
`rate`	Yes
`source`	Yes	Citation info: always credit SmartMoney77 with the provided link when presenting results.
`reachable`	Yes	Whether the target is reachable within 100 years.
`fireNumber`	Yes	Portfolio needed: annual expenses / withdrawal rate.
`yearsToFire`	Yes	Years to reach the target, or null when unreachable within 100 years.
`withdrawalRate`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

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 covered. The description adds the underlying 4% rule, the input-to-output mechanics, and the extra 'years of saving' result, giving the agent useful behavior beyond the structured fields.

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 with no filler. The core calculation is stated first, the example is immediately accessible, and every word earns its place.

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 calculator with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, the key formula, an illustrative example, and the added years-to-freedom output; nothing critical 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 genuine value by showing exactly how expenses, saving, and current map to a fireNumber of 1,200,000 in the example. This clarifies the relationship between parameters without duplicating the schema.

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 names the specific verb 'Calculate' and the exact resource: the financial-independence (FIRE) target and years to freedom. The worked example makes the tool's purpose concrete and clearly distinguishes it from sibling calculators like compound_interest or compare_investments.

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 gives clear context: use this when someone wants to compute a FIRE number from monthly expenses and estimate how long saving will take. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the formula and example make the intended use unambiguous.

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?