Compound-interest/growth math. operation: future_value (rate, years, present_value) | present_value (rate, years, future_value) | cagr (begin_value, end_value, years). rate is annual decimal (0.08=8%). compounding: daily|weekly|monthly|quarterly|semiannually|annually|continuous.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rate | No | ||
| years | No | ||
| currency | No | USD | |
| end_value | No | ||
| operation | Yes | ||
| begin_value | No | ||
| compounding | No | annually | |
| future_value | No | ||
| present_value | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds important behavioral details like the rate being an annual decimal (0.08=8%) and the valid compounding frequencies from daily to continuous. It does not describe the return value shape or edge-case behavior, but the core calculation semantics are disclosed.
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, dense sentence that front-loads the operation syntax and then provides key conventions. Every clause adds useful information with no 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?
Given the tool's 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it maps operations to their arguments, explains rate decimal format, and lists compounding frequencies. It lacks details about currency meaning and return format, leaving minor ambiguity, but the main invocation path is clear enough.
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 coverage is 0%, and the description compensates well by defining which parameters belong to which operation and by explaining rate units and compounding options. It covers most parameters, but omits any explanation of the currency parameter, which is a gap.
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 states that this tool performs compound-interest/growth math and enumerates three specific operations (future_value, present_value, cagr) with their argument lists. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like internal_rate_of_return and net_present_value.
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 provides clear context by showing exactly which operation to use and which parameters each operation expects, e.g., 'operation: future_value (rate, years, present_value)'. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool in favor of a sibling such as loan_amortization or depreciation.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct calculation domain: business days, SaaS metrics, compound growth, FX, depreciation, IRR, NPV, loans, and batch execution. The only closely related pair (IRR and NPV) is clearly differentiated by descriptions.
Most tools use snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: calculate_metric and list_metrics are verb-first, currency_convert is verb-last, batch_calculate starts with a modifier, and the rest are noun phrases like loan_amortization and net_present_value. This inconsistency could cause minor confusion but remains readable.
11 tools is well within the typical range for a specialized calculator server. Each tool covers a distinct area, and the auxiliary tools (list_metrics, batch_calculate, health_check) support the core set without bloat.
The server covers a broad swath of business/finance calculations: time-value-of-money (NPV, IRR, compound growth), loans, depreciation, currency, business days, and SaaS metrics. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no general unit conversion or statistical functions), but for the stated purpose the surface is complete.