MoneyTools x402 agent toolkit

Loan / mortgage amortization

loan_amortization

Read-onlyIdempotent

Monthly payment, total interest and schedule for annuity (本息平均攤還) or equal-principal (本金平均攤還) loans. Free: 10 calls/day; then $0.001/call via x402 (MCP params._meta["x402/payment"] or HTTP) or X-API-Key credits. [served by tools.moneytools.dev]

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "principal": "<principal>",
      "annualRate": "<annualRate>",
      "months": "<months>"
    },
    "name": "loan_amortization"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`method`	No	annuity \| equal-principal
`months`	Yes	term in months
`principal`	Yes	loan amount
`annualRate`	Yes	annual rate %

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotated context: a free quota of 10 calls/day followed by per-call pricing and the accepted payment channels (x402 meta or X-API-Key). It does not discuss rounding conventions, currency assumptions, or behavior for edge inputs, and return values are covered by the 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded in a single tight clause and the billing detail is confined to a second sentence. The payment-mechanism detail is dense but relevant to whether an agent should call this tool; nothing is redundant enough to hurt.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With an output schema and full annotation coverage, most of the burden is lifted, and pricing transparency is a plus. However, 'method' is optional and its default is never stated, and nothing clarifies rate units or rounding, which an agent needs to interpret results for a financial calculation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and each parameter is already documented in the schema (annuity | equal-principal, term in months, loan amount, annual rate %). The description adds no further parameter guidance, such as the default value when 'method' is omitted, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the concrete outputs (monthly payment, total interest, full schedule) and the two supported amortization methods, with the Chinese terms matching how many users refer to them. It is clear what the tool computes; only the absence of any sibling differentiation keeps it from a 5, though the siblings listed are unrelated utility tools.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus other tools, nor any prerequisites (e.g. that the rate is an annual nominal rate and months is the term). Usage is only implied by the purpose sentence.

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

All MoneyTools x402 agent toolkit tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?