Projects whether a systematic withdrawal plan corpus lasts and how much remains after a set number of years, based on monthly withdrawals and expected return.
Systematic withdrawal plan: does the corpus last, and how much remains?
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| years | Yes | ||
| corpus | Yes | ||
| monthly_withdrawal | Yes | ||
| expected_return_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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about assumptions: withdrawal timing (start/end of month), compounding convention, whether returns are nominal/annual, or whether the result is deterministic. It does at least imply the output concerns survival and remaining balance, but an agent cannot predict the calculation model.
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 tight sentence with the key output questions front-loaded; nothing is padded. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing specification noted elsewhere.
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?
Four required parameters, zero annotation coverage, and no parameter documentation: the description would need to state input units/conventions and the calculation assumptions to be callable with confidence. An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not required, but the input-side gaps are significant.
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% — the four required parameters carry only titles. The description adds no unit or format information: currency scale of corpus and monthly_withdrawal, and crucially whether expected_return_pct is 12 or 0.12, are left unstated. Titles alone are only marginally self-explanatory.
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 names the domain (systematic withdrawal plan) and frames the two questions the tool answers — corpus longevity and residual amount — which distinguishes it from accumulation tools like project_sip or calculate_lumpsum_value. However, it never uses a concrete verb ("calculates") and the question-style phrasing leaves the operation itself implicit.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus siblings such as project_sip (accumulation) or plan_retirement, nor any stated preconditions. The only routing signal is the domain name itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.