Calculate business break-even threshold in units and revenue, contribution margin ratio, operational margin of safety, and operating leverage degree.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| unitPrice | Yes | Selling price per unit ($) | |
| fixedCosts | Yes | Total fixed periodic operating costs ($) | |
| unitVariableCost | Yes | Variable cost incurred per unit ($) | |
| expectedUnitsSold | No | Projected unit sales volume for margin of safety analysis |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly discloses the computation's full output scope, which is the core behavioral trait for a pure calculation tool. It does not discuss edge cases like non-positive contribution margin, but for a read-only calculator this is a minor gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, tightly worded sentence front-loads the primary purpose and then lists all delivered metrics. There is no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates well by listing the main results. It is slightly incomplete regarding input validity assumptions or behavior when unitPrice is less than or equal to unitVariableCost, but it is sufficient for typical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the output names, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Calculate') plus a clear resource ('business break-even threshold') and enumerates distinct outputs (units, revenue, contribution margin ratio, margin of safety, operating leverage degree). This clearly differentiates it from sibling financial calculators like npv_irr or black_scholes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies when to use the tool: whenever break-even, contribution margin, margin of safety, or operating leverage analysis is needed. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the specialized output set makes the context obvious among the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly separated by domain and target calculation, such as rocket_deltav versus projectile_motion or black_scholes versus compound_wealth. A few pairs like home_loan_emi/mortgage_piti and contractor_parity/billable_floor could be initially confused, but the descriptions resolve the intended use cases.
All tool names are lowercase snake_case and generally follow a topic-plus-suffix pattern, which is readable and consistent. The pattern is not a strict verb_noun convention, and acronym-heavy names like feie_nomad_tracker, scorp_optimizer, and casio_991_solve introduce stylistic variance.
At exactly 25 tools, this is at the heavy but still usable end of the scale. The broad spread across tax, finance, engineering, physics, math, and cloud cost makes the server feel more like several domain calculators merged into one service.
Each tool is a self-contained calculation with no missing follow-up operations, so there are no obvious dead ends for the workflows it targets. The main gaps are minor adjacent calculators—such as NPV, depreciation, or broader statistical inference—that agents could work around or obtain elsewhere.
