future-valueFuture value of a single lump sum compounded annually.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| years | Yes | Number of years. | |
| principal | Yes | Starting amount. | |
| annualRatePct | Yes | Annual growth rate in percent. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | No | Result value. |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is known. The description adds key behavioral context by specifying 'compounded annually' and 'single lump sum', which define the calculation scope beyond the annotations. It does not detail edge cases, but the output schema exists to cover return format.
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?
The description is a single sentence, extremely concise, and directly front-loaded with the key concept. Every word is meaningful, and there is no redundancy or filler.
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?
For a simple financial calculator with full schema coverage, a complete output schema, and annotations indicating safety, the description adequately captures the tool's purpose. It does not explain return values, but the output schema handles that, and the annual compounding detail is sufficient for the intended 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 baseline is 3. The description adds contextual meaning by clarifying that principal is a one-time lump sum and compounding occurs annually, which complements the parameter descriptions without adding syntax or format details. No additional parameter-level information is provided.
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 clearly indicates the tool computes the future value of a single lump sum with annual compounding, distinguishing it from annuity or present-value calculators. However, it lacks an explicit action verb such as 'calculate' or 'compute', relying on the noun phrase 'Future value of a single lump sum'.
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 implies usage for a single lump sum with annual compounding, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like annuity-fv or present-value. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, leaving the guidance implicit rather than direct.
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.
Many tools are distinct formulas, but there are overlapping families (e.g., future-value, compound-interest, contributions all handle contributions; cagr, required-return, roi all measure returns). The sheer volume of 99 tools increases misselection risk, even with clear descriptions.
All tool names are lowercase with hyphens, following a consistent pattern (verb-noun or noun-phrase). Acronyms like irr, npv, and roa are used predictably. No mixed conventions or camelCase.
99 tools is far beyond the 'extreme mismatch' threshold of 50+. While each calculator is individual, the sheer number makes the server unwieldy and likely to overwhelm agents.
The tool surface covers a wide range of financial calculations: time value of money, loans, bonds, options, depreciation, accounting ratios, FIRE, and German tax specifics. Minor gaps exist (e.g., annuity-due variants, bond yield-to-call), but the core domain is thoroughly addressed.