Calculate your freedom number, the monthly recurring revenue needed to cover living expenses and optionally leave your job.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| salary | No | Your current annual salary | |
| monthly_expenses | No | Your monthly living expenses |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It defines the output concept but does not disclose the return format, parameter requirements, or edge-case behavior. The verb 'Calculate' suggests a read-only operation, but details like handling missing inputs are unaddressed.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Calculate') and the resource ('freedom number'). It contains no filler or redundant information.
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 simple two-parameter calculator, the description plus schema is largely complete. It explains the output concept and the optionality of leaving a job, though it could clarify the exact return format and whether both parameters are required.
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?
The input schema provides 100% coverage of both parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses the specific verb 'Calculate' and names the resource 'freedom number', defining it as the monthly recurring revenue needed to cover living expenses and optionally leave a job. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_side_business_guides and validate_idea.
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 purpose implies when to use the tool—when a user wants to calculate a freedom number from salary and monthly expenses. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or mention exclusions, such as scenarios where another tool might be more appropriate.
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 has a distinct purpose: calculating financial freedom, searching guides, and validating ideas. There is no overlap or confusion.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (search_freedom_calculator, search_side_business_guides, validate_idea), making them predictable.
Three tools is slightly minimal but appropriate for the focused domain of micro-SaaS and financial independence. Each tool covers a key aspect without being excessive.
The tools cover the main lifecycle: calculating the freedom number (goal), searching guides (research), and validating ideas. Minor gaps like progress tracking exist but are not essential.
