Compute fixed deposit maturity amount and effective yield with quarterly compounding by default from principal, annual rate, and years.
Fixed deposit maturity amount and effective yield (quarterly compounding by default).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| years | Yes | ||
| principal | Yes | ||
| annual_rate_pct | Yes | ||
| compounding_per_year | No |
| 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?
The description explicitly states a critical behavioral trait: the compounding frequency is quarterly by default. Since there are no annotations, this is essential context that informs the agent's expected output logic.
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?
The single sentence is highly efficient, front-loading the primary purpose and the default calculation behavior without unnecessary filler.
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?
It covers the necessary calculation logic (outputs and default compounding), but lacks input context, leaving the agent to rely heavily on the schema definitions for unit clarification and parameter meaning.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides almost no semantic guidance on the parameters (e.g., unit of principal, what 'years' represents beyond a number). It describes the outcome, not the input variables.
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?
The description clearly identifies the resource ('Fixed deposit') and the specific outputs ('maturity amount and effective yield'). It is highly distinct from the wide variety of sibling tools, such as SIP or CAGR calculators.
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?
The description implies the correct usage context (FD calculations), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other related calculation siblings (e.g., when to use this over a generic interest calculator).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.