Asset depreciation schedule. method: straight_line | declining_balance | sum_of_years_digits. Book value converges to salvage_value.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cost | Yes | ||
| method | Yes | ||
| currency | No | USD | |
| salvage_value | Yes | ||
| useful_life_years | Yes |
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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds the useful detail that 'Book value converges to salvage_value,' but it does not disclose the output format, rounding behavior, or how currency and useful_life_years affect the schedule.
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 brief and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and the two sentences contain no filler. However, the inline method list is somewhat terse and could be structured more clearly for readability.
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 financial calculation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is underspecified. It fails to state what a returned schedule looks like, whether output is per period, and how parameters like currency or useful_life_years are applied. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent invoking the tool.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It documents the allowed method values and links salvage_value to the end-of-schedule book value, but cost, useful_life_years, and currency are not explained at all. This is insufficient for a 5-parameter tool.
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 identifies the tool as an 'Asset depreciation schedule' and enumerates supported methods, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like loan_amortization or compound_growth. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'calculates' and does not explicitly state the scope of the returned schedule.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or appropriate context. The name and method list imply use for asset depreciation, but there are no explicit decision criteria or exclusionary instructions.
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.