Skip to main content
Glama

Worthune Verified Financial Models

decide_household

Run a Household Coordination Engine strategy on a stored household and get back a ranked decision object with evidence records. Strategies: withdrawal-sequencing (no params); roth-ladder (params.candidates: [{annualAmountUsd, years}]); ss-claiming (params.candidateAges?: {memberId: [ages 62-70]}); asset-location (params.taxRates: {marginalOrdinary, qualifiedAndLtcg} plus params.characteristics or params.illustrativeCharacteristics: true — the illustrative set is labeled not-a-recommendation and is never applied silently); tax-loss-harvesting (params.ordinaryMarginalRatePct, optional longTermRatePct and realizedGains); annual-gifting (params.doneeCount, params.years); pension-election (params.ownerId, startAge, discountRatePct, options — EPVs from the NCHS life table; adults need sex). Alternatives are ranked best-first by a checkable score under a named objective; deltas name their baseline; every projection-backed candidate links its own verifiable record; exclusions are stated in the notes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
paramsNoStrategy-specific parameters (see the tool description)
api_keyNoWorthune API key (wk_…)
horizonYes
profileNo
strategyYes
assumptionsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / assumptions / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / assumptions / properties / socialSecurityCola
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "number"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / horizon / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • changedInput schema / properties / horizon / properties / startYear / maximum
      Previous value: -9007199254740991New value: +2150
    • changedInput schema / properties / horizon / properties / startYear / minimum
      Previous value: --9007199254740991New value: +1900
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / strategy / enum
      Previous value: -[
      -  "withdrawal-sequencing",
      -  "roth-ladder",
      -  "ss-claiming",
      -  "asset-location",
      -  "tax-loss-harvesting",
      -  "annual-gifting"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "withdrawal-sequencing",
      +  "roth-ladder",
      +  "ss-claiming",
      +  "asset-location",
      +  "tax-loss-harvesting",
      +  "annual-gifting",
      +  "pension-election"
      +]
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description goes well beyond the minimal annotations by explaining ranking behavior, baseline deltas, verifiable evidence records, exclusions in notes, and the illustrative-characteristics safeguard. It does not disclose whether the decision is persisted or what side effects occur, but annotations are also uninformative, so the rich behavioral detail earns a strong score.

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 long but every clause contributes necessary strategy-specific information. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, then organizes each strategy's parameters compactly, and ends with shared output behavior. No filler 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?

The description compensates for the lack of an output schema by explaining the ranked decision object, evidence records, deltas, and notes. It also covers all strategy variants and their required params. Missing details are limited to persistence semantics and how to resolve the stored household, which are minor given the tool's complexity.

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?

With only 29% schema coverage, the description carries heavy parameter responsibility and largely succeeds: every strategy's params are enumerated with types, optionality, and constraints. However, top-level parameters such as horizon, assumptions, profile, and api_key receive no added explanation beyond their schema names.

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 states a specific action — 'Run a Household Coordination Engine strategy on a stored household' — and clearly identifies the output: a ranked decision object with evidence records. The strategy list further disambiguates the tool from generic model or projection siblings.

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?

Usage context is implied: use this tool when you need a ranked decision under a named objective. However, the description offers no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives like project_household, run_model, or get_decision, and no exclusions are stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources