Skip to main content
Glama

EveryCalc

calculate_military_pay

Read-onlyIdempotent

Monthly basic pay from the 2026 pay table for a pay grade and years of service, plus the annualized amount. Grade E1B is the special E-1 rate for the first 4 months of service. Combinations the table does not authorize return authorized=false with null pay. Use when the user wants basic pay for a pay grade and years of service from the 2026 table. For housing allowance use calculate_bah. 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 military pay calculator.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pay_gradeYesPay grade. E1B means E-1 with under 4 months of service.
years_of_serviceYesYears of service.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesTrue when the calculation succeeded.
noteYesDisclaimer that accompanies every result.
toolYesName of the tool that ran.
inputsNoThe normalized inputs the calculation used.
resultsYesThe computed figures for this calculator.
calculator_urlYesDeep link to the matching interactive calculator on everycalc.xyz.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • 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"
      +]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • 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"
      +}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds real behavioral context: the E1B special first-4-months rate, the failure mode for unauthorized combinations (authorized=false with null pay), and an output-presentation requirement (always surface calculator_url as a clickable markdown link). These are non-obvious traits that annotations and schema do not 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before edge cases and routing. The all-caps IMPORTANT instruction is a bit heavy and could be tightened, but each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description nonetheless flags the key output fields (authorized, calculator_url) and the invalid-combination case. Nothing needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the enum already documents E1B as 'E-1 with under 4 months of service', so the description largely repeats the schema. It adds only marginal value by implying that some grade/YOS combinations are unauthorized, without enumerating them. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (monthly basic pay from the 2026 pay table) plus the exact scope (pay grade and years of service, with annualized amount). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling calculate_bah by naming it. An agent can select this tool without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('when the user wants basic pay for a pay grade and years of service from the 2026 table') and names the alternative for a different need ('For housing allowance use calculate_bah'). Routing is unambiguous.

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.