Xearno Tools

Quit Runway (Can I Afford to Leave?)

quit_runway

Read-only

How long your savings last after leaving a job — and whether new income overtakes costs before they run out. The personal version of a startup runway: savings, a quit-mode budget, the costs your employer was quietly covering (health insurance above all), and the income you’d be growing instead. Answers the two questions that matter: how many months you have, and whether the new income crosses your costs before month zero.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`savings`	No	Savings you can spend Liquid only — not retirement accounts you’d pay penalties to touch.
`growthPct`	No	That income’s growth / month (%) How fast the new thing is growing, from evidence so far. 0 = flat.
`essentials`	No	Essential monthly spending The quit-mode budget, not your current lifestyle.
`extraCosts`	No	New costs after quitting What the job was covering: health insurance (US COBRA/marketplace often $400–800/person), phone, equipment.
`sideIncome`	No	Monthly income that continues Freelance, side project, partner contribution to your share — income that survives the quit.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, no destructive behavior. The description adds value by explaining the simulation nature and the core logic (savings vs. expenses, income growth). It does not contradict annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the key purpose. It uses two concise paragraphs without redundancy. Slightly more brevity could enhance it, but it remains clear and efficient.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description answers the two main output questions (months until depletion and whether income crosses costs before depletion). With no output schema, this provides sufficient context for an agent to understand return values.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The main description does not add further parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool calculates how long savings last after quitting, answering two specific questions. The title reinforces this with a user-oriented framing. It distinguishes from the sibling 'runway' tool by focusing on personal finances rather than business runway.

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?

The description clearly indicates when to use: when considering quitting a job to assess savings runway. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives like 'runway' or other financial tools, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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

All Xearno Tools 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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Each tool targets a distinct niche (e.g., specific country tax rules, loan types, or legal calculations), with detailed descriptions that clarify boundaries. However, the large number of tools (66) could cause some confusion for an agent trying to select the right one for a general query, especially when multiple tools relate to the same country.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a mostly predictable pattern: lowercase words separated by underscores, often starting with a country name (e.g., 'uk_stamp_duty_sdlt') or a topic (e.g., 'compound_growth'). There are minor deviations, such as abbreviations ('npv_irr', 'sip') and varying use of verbs, but overall the naming is clear and consistent.

Tool Count3/5

At 66 tools, the server is unusually large and covers an extensive range of financial and legal calculators. While each tool justifies its existence, the count exceeds the typical well-scoped range (3–15), making the server feel bloated. A more modular design might improve coherence.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide array of domains: personal income taxes, property taxes, loan calculations, investment returns, and specific country regulations. Minor gaps exist (e.g., missing tools for corporate taxes, general retirement planning, or insurance), but the overall coverage is thorough and addresses many niche scenarios that general AI handles poorly.

Resources

Need Help?