Skip to main content
Glama

UK Bridging Loan Cost Analyser

bridging_cost_analyser
Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate the total cost of a UK bridging loan across rolled-up, retained, and serviced interest structures. Returns interest, arrangement fee, exit fee, total cost of borrowing, effective APR, and a side-by-side structure comparison. Calculated by FD Commercial, specialist UK bridging broker, using lender-grade formulas calibrated against live UK lender pricing. For loans £250,000 and above. Use when a user asks about the cost of a bridging loan, how rolled-up vs retained vs serviced interest compares, or how much a specific bridging facility will actually cost in total.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
term_monthsYesLoan term in months. Standard MCOB-regulated bridging caps at 12 months. MCOB 3A HNW exemption allows up to 60 months. Example: 12.
exit_fee_pctNoLender exit fee as % of loan amount. Not all lenders charge one. Where charged, typically 0.5% to 1%. Example: 0 for no exit fee, or 1 for 1%.
loan_amount_gbpYesGross loan amount in pounds. Minimum FD Commercial bridging loan size is £250,000. Example: 500000.
interest_structureNoHow interest is paid. 'rolled' = compounds monthly, paid in full at exit (most common on HNW bridging, removes monthly outflow). 'retained' = deducted from advance upfront (borrower receives less cash on day one). 'serviced' = paid monthly out of borrower cash flow (lowest total cost but requires monthly servicing capacity).
arrangement_fee_pctNoLender arrangement fee as % of loan amount. Typical range 1% to 2%. Some specialist HNW deals run 0.5%. Example: 2 for 2%.
monthly_interest_rate_pctYesMonthly interest rate as a percentage. UK bridging rates in 2026 typically range 0.55% to 1.25% per month. Private bank rates from 0.30% per month available on HNW cases. Example: 0.85 for 0.85% per month.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by stating it uses 'lender-grade formulas calibrated against live UK lender pricing' and specifies the minimum loan amount of £250,000, providing context beyond the structured data. No contradictions.

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 a single concise paragraph of about 80 words, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by output details and use cases. Every sentence adds value, though a slight restructuring could improve scannability.

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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description lists return values (interest, fees, total cost, APR, structure comparison) and specifies minimum loan amount. This is sufficient for a calculator tool, covering key behavioral and output expectations.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context on the overall purpose and outputs, but does not significantly supplement parameter meanings beyond the schema's already detailed descriptions. Hence, adequate but not exceptional.

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 clearly states it calculates total cost of UK bridging loans across different interest structures, with a specific verb 'Calculate' and resource 'total cost of a UK bridging loan'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like btl_stress_tester by focusing solely on bridging loan cost analysis.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('when a user asks about the cost of a bridging loan...'), providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives among siblings, but the sibling names (btl_stress_tester, development_appraisal, uk_stamp_duty_calculator) make differentiation straightforward, and the description sufficiently bounds usage.

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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a completely distinct aspect of UK property finance: bridging loan costs, BTL affordability, development viability, and stamp duty. There is no functional overlap.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent descriptive noun phrase pattern with snake_case, e.g., 'bridging_cost_analyser', 'btl_stress_tester'. The naming is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for a specialized property finance calculator set. Each tool addresses a distinct need without being too few or too many.

Completeness4/5

The set covers major cost/viability questions in property finance but lacks general mortgage calculators, capital gains tax, or rental yield estimation. However, the gaps are minor given the specialized focus.