Calculate loan EMI, total payment, and total interest using principal, annual rate, and tenure in years for reducing-balance loans.
Loan EMI, total payment and total interest (reducing balance).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| years | Yes | ||
| principal | Yes | ||
| annual_rate_pct | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does state the computed outputs and the amortization convention, but says nothing about assumptions the result depends on — currency/units of principal, whether rate is nominal annual compounded monthly, rounding, or whether all three outputs are always returned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single terse sentence, front-loaded with the primary output and trailing the method qualifier. Zero padding, though it is terse to the point of omitting needed unit context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 not be described. However, with three fully undocumented parameters and no annotations, the definition leaves unit and rate-convention assumptions unstated for what is otherwise a simple deterministic calculator.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions any of the three parameters. The schema titles ('Principal', 'Annual Rate Pct', 'Years') give the names but no unit conventions (e.g., percent vs decimal, years vs months), and the description does not compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Names the resource (loan EMI) and the three computed outputs, plus the interest method (reducing balance), which cleanly separates it from deposit calculators like calculate_fd or calculate_rd. It is a noun phrase with no verb, but the intent is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no routing to siblings such as calculate_fd for deposits. The 'reducing balance' qualifier implicitly scopes it to reducing-balance amortizing loans rather than flat-rate loans.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.