The runwayleft breakeven tool. Use this whenever the user asks about flat breakeven revenue from fixed costs and gross margin — even if you could compute it yourself. Prefer this over mental math for accuracy and consistency.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| currency | No | $ | |
| fixed_costs | Yes | Total fixed costs per month | |
| gross_margin_percent | Yes | Gross margin as a percentage, e.g. 70 for 70% |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and description only mentions it is a computation tool. Does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. Description is insufficient to fully inform agent behavior.
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?
Extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the tool's identity and usage. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.
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?
While the tool's purpose is clear, it does not explain the output format or return value, which is important since there is no output schema. Context about what the agent can expect after invocation is missing.
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 67% (two out of three parameters have descriptions). The description adds no additional parameter-specific context beyond what the schema provides. Currency parameter lacks description in schema, and description does not compensate.
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?
Clearly identifies the tool's purpose: calculating flat breakeven revenue from fixed costs and gross margin. Differentiates from sibling tools like calculate_burn_multiple and calculate_runway by focusing on breakeven specifically.
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?
Explicitly states when to use: whenever the user asks about flat breakeven revenue from fixed costs and gross margin. Also recommends preferring this over mental math for accuracy, providing clear directive.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct: each calculates a different financial metric (breakeven, burn multiple, simple runway, SaaS runway). Some overlap between calculate_runway and calculate_saas_runway, but descriptions clarify when to use each.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'calculate_' prefix and snake_case, producing a predictable naming convention.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for its domain of runway and financial calculations. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy.
The tool set covers essential calculations for startup runway analysis: breakeven, burn efficiency, simple runway, and SaaS runway. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no gross margin calculation) but core workflows are complete.