Clara Mortgage Assistant

Calculate LTV and CLTV

calculate_ltv

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate Canadian loan-to-value and combined loan-to-value using purchase price, appraisal, and secured positions. Ratios are not an approval or suitability decision. Use only with explicit, non-identifying numeric inputs. Calculation only: never use this tool to approve, deny, underwrite, recommend, select a lender or product, or fill missing inputs from prior chats, files, accounts, documents, websites, or web search.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`storedLtv`	No	Optional previously stored LTV ratio as a decimal; for example, 75% is 0.75.
`loanAmount`	Yes	New mortgage or loan amount in Canadian dollars.
`valueBasis`	No
`jurisdiction`	No	Canadian calculations only.	CA
`effectiveDate`	Yes	Date the supplied rates and policy assumptions were confirmed.
`purchasePrice`	No	Property purchase price in Canadian dollars.
`appraisedValue`	No	Property appraised value in Canadian dollars.
`otherSecuredPositions`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tool`	Yes
`currency`	Yes
`disclaimer`	Yes
`calculation`	Yes
`jurisdiction`	Yes
`effectiveDate`	Yes
`calculationVersion`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description reinforces this with 'Calculation only' and explicitly prohibits using the tool for decision-making, adding behavioral clarity beyond the annotations.

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 description is concise but includes several sentences of constraints. It is structured with a clear purpose statement followed by usage restrictions. No unnecessary fluff, though it could be slightly more compact.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It covers the calculation purpose and usage constraints effectively. It does not mention required parameters explicitly, but the schema does, so overall completeness is adequate.

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?

The schema provides descriptions for most parameters (75% coverage). The description adds context by mentioning 'purchase price, appraisal, and secured positions', which aligns with key parameters and helps understand their purpose, though it does not detail individual parameters.

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?

Clearly states it calculates Canadian loan-to-value and combined loan-to-value, distinguishing it from sibling tools like debt service or qualification. The verb 'Calculate' and specific resource 'loan-to-value' make the purpose explicit.

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 clear constraints: 'Use only with explicit, non-identifying numeric inputs' and warns against using for approvals or decisions. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools, though the focus on LTV makes appropriate usage implicit.

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

All Clara Mortgage Assistant tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each calculation tool targets a distinct mortgage calculation (debt service ratios, LTV, qualification, scenario comparison, prepayment penalty), and the refuse tool exists solely for disallowed requests, creating clear boundaries between tools. The descriptions are explicit about when to use each tool and how they differ, minimizing misselection risk.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (calculate_debt_service, calculate_ltv, calculate_qualification, compare_mortgage_scenarios, estimate_prepayment_penalty). One tool deviates with the verb 'refuse' rather than 'calculate' or 'estimate', which is appropriate given its distinct refusal purpose but slightly inconsistent in naming style.

Tool Count4/5

With 6 tools, the count is well-scoped for a specialized mortgage calculation assistant. Each tool addresses a specific calculation or a necessary refusal flow, and the count is neither too thin nor too heavy for the stated purpose.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the main mortgage calculations an agent would need (debt service, LTV, qualification, comparisons, prepayment penalties), with a dedicated refusal tool for unsupported requests. A minor gap might be tools for other common calculations like maximum purchase price or payment amount, but the core domain appears covered.

Resources

Need Help?