sunnyspoints

Points or Cash Calculator

calculate_points_or_cash

Read-only

Should this flight be booked with points or cash? Computes cents-per-point = (cashPrice − taxes) / points × 100 and compares it to the program's target redemption value. Returns a clear verdict with the margin. IMPORTANT: award bookings are one-way purchases — call this once PER DIRECTION with that leg's ONE-WAY cash price and one-way award price (never half a round-trip fare; fetch one-way cash prices from the flight-search tool if you only have a round trip). Round trips often split points-one-way/cash-the-other.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`route`	No	ORIGIN-DEST being priced, e.g. 'BOS-SFO' (optional; anonymous aggregate stats only — include when known)
`program`	Yes
`taxesUsd`	Yes
`pointsCost`	Yes
`cashPriceUsd`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedAug 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is fully consistent. It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the exact formula, the one-way award booking caveat, and the warning not to use half of a round-trip fare. This is valuable, non-obvious behavior that prevents misuse.

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 longer than average but every sentence adds crucial operational guidance (one-way, per direction, fetch one-way prices, round-trip split). It is front-loaded with the purpose and verdict. A minor redundancy exists between 'call once PER DIRECTION' and the later 'Round trips often split' clause, but it is acceptable given the importance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite no output schema, the description specifies what is returned ('clear verdict with the margin'). It covers all necessary usage constraints, input sourcing, and the business rule about round trips. For a calculator with five simple parameters, this is complete and self-sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 20%, so the description must compensate. The formula directly defines the semantics of pointsCost, taxesUsd, and cashPriceUsd. It also clarifies that cashPriceUsd must be one-way and that route is optional for anonymous stats. However, it does not explicitly describe units (e.g., points are integer, USD are dollars) or the meaning of program beyond referencing its redemption value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Computes', 'Returns') and clearly identifies the resource (points-vs-cash decision for flights). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on per-direction cost comparison and a verdict output, which no other sibling tool does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use (booking a flight, deciding points vs cash), how often to call (once per direction), and what inputs to use (one-way cash price, one-way award price). It also directs the user to fetch one-way prices from the flight-search tool if needed, giving an actionable alternative.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All sunnyspoints tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool serves a distinct purpose: deal browsing (list_live_deals, get_deal), valuation (get_points_values), decision calculators (calculate_points_or_cash, evaluate_signup_bonus), workflow guidance (get_points_hacking_playbook), membership info, transfer partner lookup, and subscription. There's no overlap—get_deal and list_live_deals are complementary (list vs. detail).

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the same verb_noun pattern with snake_case (e.g., calculate_points_or_cash, get_membership_info, lookup_transfer_partners). The verbs vary but are all action-oriented, and the nouns clearly indicate the resource, resulting in a predictable and consistent naming scheme.

Tool Count5/5

With 9 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose—covering deal discovery, detailed evaluations, reference data, workflow guidance, and user subscription. Each tool earns its place without redundancy, and the count is within the ideal range for clarity.

Completeness5/5

The toolset covers the full lifecycle of a points-hacking user: discover deals, get valuations, decide cash vs. points, evaluate sign-up bonuses, transfer partners, follow the playbook, and subscribe for alerts. No critical operations are missing, and the playbook tool orchestrates the workflow to handle gaps like flight search externally.

Resources

Need Help?