SmartMoney77

Latte factor (small daily habit cost)

latte_factor

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate what a small recurring daily expense (coffee, cigarettes, takeaway) costs over time and what it would grow to if invested instead. Monthly cost = cost × perWeek × 52 / 12, and monthly contributions are made at the end of each month (ordinary annuity). Example: { "cost": 5, "years": 30, "rate": 8, "perWeek": 5 } → ~108/month spent and a six-figure invested balance.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cost`	Yes	Cost of the habit per day.
`lang`	No	Language code for the returned link.	en
`rate`	No	Expected annual investment return in percent (default 8).
`type`	No	Optional habit key for the link, e.g. 'coffee'.
`years`	No	Number of years (default 30).
`perWeek`	No	How many days per week the expense happens (default 7).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	Deep link to the same calculation on SmartMoney77.
`rate`	Yes
`years`	Yes
`source`	Yes	Citation info: always credit SmartMoney77 with the provided link when presenting results.
`totalSpent`	Yes	Total spent on the habit over the whole period.
`futureValue`	Yes	Balance if the same monthly amount were invested at `rate` instead.
`monthlyCost`	Yes	Average monthly cost: cost × perWeek × 52 / 12, rounded.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only and idempotent, so the description's main contribution is the calculation model: the exact monthly cost formula, the 52/12 conversion, and the ordinary annuity assumption with end-of-month contributions. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations. The only notable omission is that the parameters mention a 'returned link', which the description does not disclose, but this is partly covered by the presence of an output schema.

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: it states the purpose, then gives the formula, the timing assumption, and a worked example in three sentences. Every sentence contributes essential information with no fluff or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a financial calculator with a formula and an important timing assumption, the description covers the core mechanics well. The full schema documents all six parameters, and an output schema exists, so the return shape is specified elsewhere. Minor gaps are the lack of mention that the result is delivered as a link and no guidance on currency or rounding, but these are not critical given the structured context.

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 by showing how cost, perWeek, years, and rate relate in the formula, and by demonstrating parameter use with a concrete example (~108/month, six-figure balance). This goes beyond the schema's individual property descriptions.

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 clearly states a specific calculation: the cost of a small recurring daily expense over time and its invested alternative. It names concrete examples (coffee, cigarettes, takeaway) and gives a formula, making the tool's resource and behavior unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like compound_interest or cost_of_waiting, so it misses the top score.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description implies the tool is for daily-habit cost analysis but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as compound_interest, cost_of_waiting, or compare_investments. There are no 'use this when' or 'instead use' statements, leaving the decision to the agent's inference.

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?