Skip to main content
Glama

tvm-fund

calculate_future_value

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate the future value of a single lump sum: what a present amount grows to at a given rate over a given number of periods, with compounding. Formula: FV = PV x (1 + r)^n. WHEN TO USE: Use to project what an investment or cash balance will be worth at a future date under compound growth (e.g. an invested lump sum, or a liability growing at a stated rate). WHEN NOT TO USE: Do NOT use for series of multiple cash flows (use calculate_npv or an annuity tool), or when you need the required starting amount (use calculate_present_value). BEHAVIOUR: pure deterministic calculation — no side effects, no network or storage access; idempotent and non-destructive; identical inputs always produce identical outputs. Division by zero, non-finite inputs, or mathematically undefined combinations return an explicit error instead of a number. RETURNS: JSON object { future_value: number (currency), inputs }. PARAMETERS: present_value (required): Starting amount in currency units, e.g. 100000. May be negative for a liability. rate (required): Periodic rate as a decimal, e.g. 0.08 = 8% per period (never pass percentage points). Rate and periods must share frequency (annual/annual or monthly/monthly). periods (required): Number of compounding periods, e.g. 5. Must be >= 0.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rateYesPeriodic rate as a decimal, e.g. 0.08 = 8% per period (never pass percentage points). Rate and periods must share frequency (annual/annual or monthly/monthly).
periodsYesNumber of compounding periods, e.g. 5. Must be >= 0.
present_valueYesStarting amount in currency units, e.g. 100000. May be negative for a liability.

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the BEHAVIOUR section adds meaningful detail beyond them: pure deterministic calculation, no side effects, no network/storage access, identical inputs produce identical outputs, and explicit errors for undefined mathematical cases. This is valuable operational context that annotations alone do not capture.

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 uses clear labeled sections (WHEN TO USE, WHEN NOT TO USE, BEHAVIOUR, RETURNS, PARAMETERS) and every sentence adds essential information. It is longer than typical tool descriptions, but the length is justified by the need to cover usage boundaries, formula, error behavior, and parameter semantics for a math tool.

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?

With no output schema, the RETURNS section correctly specifies the JSON shape including the future_value field and inputs echo. The description covers the full calling contract: formula, parameter semantics, edge cases, error behavior, and sibling routing, so an agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

While schema coverage is 100%, the description enriches all three parameters with practical examples: present_value may be negative for a liability, rate must be a decimal not percentage points, and rate must share frequency with periods. These nuances are partly in the schema but are reinforced and contextualized in the description.

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 a precise verb and resource — calculating future value of a single lump sum with compounding — and backs it with the explicit formula FV = PV x (1 + r)^n. It explicitly contrasts itself with related siblings like calculate_present_value, calculate_npv, and annuity tools, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The WHEN TO USE section gives concrete scenarios: projecting investments, cash balances, or liabilities under compound growth. The WHEN NOT TO USE section names specific alternatives (calculate_npv, annuity tools, calculate_present_value) and the conditions that should route to them, making selection unambiguous.

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.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a mathematically distinct calculation (single-sum PV/FV, annuity, perpetuity, payback, fund multiples). The descriptions include explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'WHEN NOT TO USE' sections with cross-references, making it unambiguous which tool applies to which scenario.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the exact pattern verb_noun with the consistent 'calculate_' prefix (e.g., calculate_present_value, calculate_payback_period). The naming convention is uniform across the entire set.

Tool Count5/5

11 tools is well within the ideal range for a focused domain. Each tool addresses a distinct calculation relevant to time-value-of-money and fund performance, with no redundant entries.

Completeness3/5

The set covers many core calculations but is missing NPV and IRR, which are explicitly referenced as the recommended tools in several descriptions (e.g., payback periods, TVPI). This creates a notable gap that could lead agents to follow cross-references to non-existent tools.

Resources