Free Canadian retirement projections and one what-if from confirmed inputs. No Glacier account.
Scored across 1 tool
With only a single tool in the set, there is no possibility of misselection or overlap. The tool's purpose is clearly bounded to a calculation-and-comparison operation.
The name calculate_retirement follows a clean verb_noun snake_case pattern that matches its action and domain. No inconsistency is possible with one tool.
A single tool is thin even for a narrow calculator scope; the description itself hints at broader functionality (comparison, provenance, artifacts) that could warrant separate tools. It earns its place but the surface feels minimal.
The tool covers calculation and one alternative comparison, but explicitly excludes saved-record lookup or mutation, so scenario management and multi-alternative exploration are dead ends. Core calculator behavior is covered, but lifecycle coverage is limited by design.
Use the person’s supplied numbers to calculate whether savings cover spending and compare one explicit retirement/spending alternative. Free, no sign-in. Returns annual results, assumptions, provenance and a portable input artifact; no saved-record lookup or mutation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful context beyond that: annual results, assumptions, provenance, a portable input artifact, and no saved-record lookup or mutation. This gives an agent a solid behavioral profile for invocation.
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 compact and front-loaded: the calculation and comparison come first, followed by access and return-value notes. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.
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 complex calculator with no output schema, the description explains what is returned and reinforces the absence of persistence or mutation. It could do more to surface the Canadian/provincial scope and required assumptions beyond what the title and schema carry.
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 is a single deeply nested object, and schema description coverage is reported as 0%. The description gestures at 'the person’s supplied numbers' and an alternative, but does not explain required fields such as province, people, annualSpending, or assumptionsAccepted, leaving most parameter meaning to the schema.
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 a specific verb-resource pair, 'calculate ... retirement', and explains the core comparison: whether savings cover spending plus one explicit alternative. It clearly distinguishes this as a first-plan calculation rather than a record lookup or mutation.
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?
It establishes the context clearly: use the person’s supplied numbers, it is free with no sign-in, and it does not perform saved-record lookup or mutation. There are no sibling tools to compare against, but the description stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
calculate_retirementRetirement planning for Canada & US. CPP/OAS, Social Security, RRSP/TFSA, 401k/IRA, Monte Carlo.
Run hypothetical retirement simulations and compare outcomes using your assumptions.
FIRE & retirement calculators + a multi-currency portfolio rebalancer (exact buy/sell trades).
Retirement drawdown, 72(t) SEPP, RMD, Roth conversion, Social Security and state-tax calculators.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
