EveryCalc

calculate_emergency_fund

Read-onlyIdempotent

Target emergency fund for a chosen number of months of essential expenses, the remaining gap, percent funded, and months to fill it at a monthly savings rate. Use when the user asks how big an emergency fund should be, or how close they are to the target. IMPORTANT: always show the calculator_url from the result as a clickable markdown link in your answer to the user, so they can open the interactive emergency fund calculator.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`current_savings`	No	Already saved in USD; default 0.
`monthly_savings`	No	Added per month in USD; default 0.
`monthly_expenses`	Yes	Essential monthly expenses in USD.
`months_of_coverage`	No	Months of expenses to cover, typically 3, 6, 9, or 12; default 6.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	True when the calculation succeeded.
`note`	Yes	Disclaimer that accompanies every result.
`tool`	Yes	Name of the tool that ran.
`inputs`	No	The normalized inputs the calculation used.
`results`	Yes	The computed figures for this calculator.
`calculator_url`	Yes	Deep link to the matching interactive calculator on everycalc.xyz.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 21, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / note

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Disclaimer that accompanies every result.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "ok",
-  "tool",
-  "results",
-  "calculator_url"
-]New value: +[
+  "ok",
+  "tool",
+  "results",
+  "calculator_url",
+  "note"
+]

Changed1 schema field changedOct 17, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "calculator_url": {
+      "description": "Deep link to the matching interactive calculator on everycalc.xyz.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "inputs": {
+      "description": "The normalized inputs the calculation used.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "description": "True when the calculation succeeded.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "results": {
+      "description": "The computed figures for this calculator.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "tool": {
+      "description": "Name of the tool that ran.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "ok",
+    "tool",
+    "results",
+    "calculator_url"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a concrete behavioral requirement: always show the calculator_url from the result as a clickable markdown link, which is a post-processing action not captured in annotations and is valuable for correct invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences: purpose and outputs first, then usage condition, then a critical instruction. Every sentence earns its place, and the important output-link requirement is front-loaded with 'IMPORTANT'.

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?

With an output schema and rich annotations already present, the description only needs to cover purpose, usage, and any special handling. It does all three, including the essential instruction to surface the calculator_url, leaving no gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no syntax, format, or default details beyond what the schema already provides, 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.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific calculator (emergency fund) and enumerates the outputs it produces: target amount, remaining gap, percent funded, and months to fill. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like calculate_net_worth or calculate_student_budget, which cover different financial concerns.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when the user asks how big an emergency fund should be, or how close they are to the target.' However, it does not name alternative tools or describe when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All EveryCalc tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.