Skip to main content
Glama

Calculate.co.nz NZ Calculators

nz_vehicle_loan_calculator

Work out repayments on a New Zealand car loan, and what it really costs.

Use for: 'what would repayments be on a $35,000 car', 'car loan
calculator', 'is a 5 year car loan a bad idea', 'how much interest will I
pay on car finance'.

LEAD WITH interest_share_of_borrowing, NOT THE MONTHLY PAYMENT. Car finance
runs at rates a mortgage borrower would not recognise, so over five years
the interest often exceeds 30% of what was borrowed. That single figure
informs the decision more than the payment does, and it is the one nobody
is shown at the dealership.

The term is short, so stretching it barely moves the monthly payment and
moves the total interest a great deal. If they are considering a longer
term, run both and show the difference in total interest.

fortnightly_equivalent is the monthly payment converted, because that is
how most people are paid. It is NOT fortnightly amortisation, which would
clear the loan faster and is a different product. Say which you mean.

ALWAYS mention excludes before quoting a payment as what they will pay.
Establishment fees, PPSR registration, mechanical breakdown insurance and
dealer add-ons are usually financed too, so a real contract is higher. A
balloon payment cuts the monthly figure and leaves a lump sum at the end.

Args:
    vehicle_price: Price of the vehicle.
    deposit: Cash or trade-in up front.
    annual_interest_rate_pct: A PERCENTAGE, so 12.95 not 0.1295.
    term_years: Loan term in years.

Returns:
    Monthly, fortnightly and weekly figures, total repaid, total interest,
    and the interest as a share of the borrowing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
depositNo
term_yearsNo
vehicle_priceYes
annual_interest_rate_pctNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it over-delivers: it instructs the agent to lead with interest_share_of_borrowing over the monthly payment and explains why, warns that fortnighly_equivalent is a conversion NOT fortnighly amortisation, demands the excludes caveat before quoting payments, and explains how term-stretching distorts total interest. These are behavioral traits no annotation or schema could convey.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, critical behavioral warnings are prioritized before the Args/Returns block, and every paragraph carries non-redundant operational guidance. Minor waste: the use-for list contains two near-synonymous examples ('$35,000 car' and 'car loan calculator'), and the ALL-CAPS emphasis style costs tokens without adding information. Long, but each section earns its place given zero annotations and zero schema coverage.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, this description is complete: it states purpose, routing phrasings, output emphasis, comparative-run behavior, fortnighly semantics, standard exclusions, balloon-payment behavior, every parameter's semantics, and the return figures. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly or present its results responsibly is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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, and it does: annual_interest_rate_pct is disambiguated with 'A PERCENTAGE, so 12.95 not 0.1295' — precisely the format error agents make; deposit is expanded to 'Cash or trade-in up front'; term_years gets its unit made explicit. All four parameters receive meaning beyond the raw schema types and defaults.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+'Work out repayments on a New Zealand car loan, and what it really costs' — and the 'what it really costs' extension differentiates it from a bare payment calculator. The use-for examples also pin the intended queries ('what would repayments be on a $35,000 car', 'how much interest will I pay on car finance'), which distinguishes it from sibling finance tools like nz_mortgage_calculator and nz_kiwisaver_calculator without opening their schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides an explicit, quoted list of user phrasings that should route here ('car loan calculator', 'is a 5 year car loan a bad idea'), which is strong when-to-use guidance. However, it never names a sibling as the alternative or states when NOT to use it, so an agent facing ambiguous queries like 'loan repayments' has no exclusion signal. This matches 'clear context, no exclusions' exactly.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources