TradingCalc MCP: Options, Forex, Risk Stats, Prediction Markets, On-Chain & Crypto Futures

Cagr

workflow.run_cagr

Read-only

Compound annual growth rate between a beginning and an ending value over a number of years: the constant yearly rate that turns one into the other, (ending / beginning)^(1 / years) - 1. A smoothed average: it hides the path and the volatility in between, and it says nothing about future growth. Both values must be positive. Edge cases: beginningValue and endingValue above zero (a start or end of zero or below has no growth rate); years above zero and at most 1000, a fraction of a year is fine. Not covered: contributions or withdrawals in between (that is not CAGR), the path and volatility between the two dates, and any forecast; CAGR smooths a bumpy path into one rate. Use when user asks "what is the CAGR of my portfolio?" or "what yearly growth takes $10,000 to $25,000 in 8 years?". Returns: cagr, totalReturn, growthMultiple, logGrowthRate (all fractions; logGrowthRate is the continuously compounded rate).

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": {
      "beginningValue": "<beginningValue>",
      "endingValue": "<endingValue>",
      "years": "<years>"
    },
    "name": "workflow.run_cagr"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`years`	Yes	Years between them, above 0 and at most 1000 (fractions allowed, e.g. 2.5)
`endingValue`	Yes	Value at the end (positive), same currency
`beginningValue`	Yes	Value at the start (positive)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description adds real context on top: both values must be positive, years must be >0 and ≤1000, and it explicitly frames the result as a smoothed average that says nothing about the future. Some of this restates schema constraints verbatim, so it is additive rather than fully independent.

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?

Front-loaded with the definition and formula before constraints, triggers and outputs. It loses a point for redundancy: the path/volatility caveat is made twice ('it hides the path and the volatility in between' and again in the 'Not covered' list), and the positivity/year bounds are restated from the schema.

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?

No output schema, but the description compensates by enumerating the returns (cagr, totalReturn, growthMultiple, logGrowthRate) and clarifying they are fractions with logGrowthRate continuously compounded. Combined with validated edge cases and trigger examples, nothing material is missing for a three-parameter pure computation.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented, and the description only echoes them (positive values, same currency, fractional years allowed). Baseline 3 is appropriate — it adds interpretation but no syntax or units beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb/resource pair — compound annual growth rate between a beginning and ending value over a number of years — and even gives the formula, (ending / beginning)^(1 / years) - 1. An agent can separate this from neighbors like run_irr, run_future_value or run_apy_apr_converter without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides concrete trigger phrases ('what is the CAGR of my portfolio?', 'what yearly growth takes $10,000 to $25,000 in 8 years?') and an explicit exclusion: contributions or withdrawals in between, forecasts, and path/volatility are 'not covered'. It stops short of naming a sibling tool to use instead for cash-flow cases, which keeps it from a 5.

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

All TradingCalc MCP: Options, Forex, Risk Stats, Prediction Markets, On-Chain & Crypto Futures 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.