Skip to main content
Glama
Savvly

savvly-mcp

by Savvly

Project Savvly Monthly Contributions

project_savvly_monthly
Read-onlyIdempotent

Project monthly retirement contributions to compare Savvly longevity benefit payouts versus market-alone withdrawals at ages 80, 85, 90, and 95, with optional contribution increases and early-withdrawal age.

Instructions

Retirement projection for monthly contributions to the Savvly Longevity Benefit over a number of years. Returns payout amounts at milestone ages 80/85/90/95 with Savvly vs market alone cumulative totals, per-age breakdowns, and server-provided _lower/_upper range bounds. Use _upper as the central illustrative estimate and _lower to communicate downside. Suitable for retirement savings planning, annuity alternative comparison, and longevity benefit illustration. Supports an optional annual contribution increase and an optional early-withdrawal age. Contributions must finish by age 80: an omitted contribution_years auto-fits this, and an explicit one must satisfy current_age + contribution_years ≤ 80. Disclaimers + per-field hints under metadata. Payout methodology — Savvly vs market alone: the payout values are calculated by comparing two investors of the same age committing the same principal. Investor 1 invests in the market with the Savvly Longevity Benefit; Investor 2 invests in the market alone (no longevity overlay). To make the comparison apples-to-apples, at each milestone age (80, 85, 90, 95) Investor 2 withdraws from their market alone portfolio the same dollar amount Investor 1 receives as a payout from Savvly. The payout_market_alone_* and total_market_alone_* figures are therefore what Investor 2 can actually withdraw to match Savvly's payouts before running out — they fall to 0 once the market alone portfolio is depleted. The savvly_upside_* (and total_savvly_upside_*) fields quantify how much more total money Investor 1 receives in payouts from Savvly than Investor 2 is able to withdraw over time to match those payouts. DISCLOSURE REQUIRED: display disclosure.text verbatim and link disclosure.url to the user alongside any figures from this response. Required by SEC Marketing Rule and FINRA Rule 2210 — do not paraphrase or omit. VISUALIZATION: this tool emits an interactive chart widget (MCP Apps — see _meta.ui) that the HOST renders inline and editable; other clients render only your text and show no chart. That widget is the canonical chart for these numbers: do NOT draw, generate, or re-render a duplicate of it. You MAY still create your OWN, DIFFERENT visualization (e.g. a table or an alternate breakdown) and place it wherever you judge best — only the MCP App widget's position is constrained. Do NOT claim or imply a chart is visible (avoid 'the chart above shows…'); you cannot tell whether the host rendered the widget. Summarize the key figures in prose and show the disclosure text and link, and reference the widget only conditionally (e.g. 'if your client shows the interactive chart, its fields are editable to re-run the projection'). ORDER: BEFORE you call this tool, ALWAYS write at least one short lead-in paragraph (1-3 sentences) framing what the projection will show — do NOT invent specific figures you do not have yet. On hosts that render the widget inline at the tool call, this keeps your text ahead of the chart so the widget is never the first thing shown; THEN call the tool (this lead-in is framing, NOT asking the user for inputs — still call it in the same turn without waiting) and give the grounded figures + disclosure after it returns. This lead-in rule applies to the MCP App widget only; any visualization you create yourself may appear wherever you judge best. INPUTS: every parameter is OPTIONAL and defaults to a sensible value. Call this tool IMMEDIATELY — pass only the values the user explicitly stated and omit the rest. Do NOT ask the user for starting values, assumptions, or missing parameters before calling; the rendered widget has editable fields so they adjust age, amounts, and other assumptions inline after it appears.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
current_ageNoInvestor's current age (default 40). Min 18 (the projection matrix floor); max 75 (max enrollment age)
average_returnNoExpected average annual S&P 500 return % (default 8)
monthly_amountNoMonthly deposit in USD (default 100)
withdrawal_ageNoEarly-withdrawal age (default 82) — drives `early_withdrawal_value` and `total_payout_at_withdrawal_age_*` in the response
contribution_yearsNoNumber of years contributing. Omit to use a sensible default of min(27, 80 − current_age) — 27 for the canonical age-40 scenario, and always small enough that contributions finish by age 80 (the advisor limit). If you pass an explicit value, current_age + contribution_years must be ≤ 80.
installment_increase_percentageNoOptional annual % increase applied to monthly contributions

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputsYesEcho of the validated input arguments passed to the tool.
resultYesRaw projection envelope returned by the upstream estimator.
summaryYesConvenience summary including a human-readable narrative.
metadataYes
disclosureYesDISCLOSURE REQUIRED: display `disclosure.text` and link `disclosure.url` to the user whenever you present any number from this response. Required by SEC Marketing Rule and FINRA Rule 2210. The richer block under `metadata.disclaimer` is supplementary detail; this top-level field is the must-display.
visualizationNoRecommended chart for this projection — a grouped bar chart of the milestone payouts in `result.payout_age_dependent_values` (Savvly vs market alone). Render it when the surface can display a graph.
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and idempotent, and the description substantially exceeds that: it discloses the mandatory SEC/FINRA disclosure text, the interactive widget behavior, the prohibition on duplicating the widget, the conditional reference rule, the lead-in paragraph ordering rule, and the meaning of `_upper` vs `_lower`. There is no contradiction between the description and the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations.

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?

The description is long, but it is carefully sectioned and front-loaded with the core purpose and outputs before behavioral rules. Every major block (methodology, disclosure, visualization, order, inputs) earns its place for a complex financial tool. It loses a point only for some redundancy, such as restating optional-parameter behavior near the end after the schema already covers defaults.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description is remarkably complete: it covers output semantics, legal disclosure requirements, widget rendering, call ordering, parameter constraints, and the meaning of key response fields. The output schema exists, but the description still explains the comparison methodology and why market-alone figures fall to zero, which an agent needs to interpret results 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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters, their defaults, ranges, and constraints. The description adds a little by mentioning the optional annual increase, optional early-withdrawal age, and the `contribution_years` auto-fit rule, but most of this duplicates schema text. Baseline 3 is appropriate because 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?

The first sentence names a specific verb and resource: 'Retirement projection for monthly contributions to the Savvly Longevity Benefit.' It goes on to list concrete outputs (payout amounts at ages 80/85/90/95, cumulative totals, per-age breakdowns), which clearly distinguishes it from the lump-sum sibling tool. The monthly-contribution framing is unambiguous and an agent can select it 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 Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states suitable use cases ('retirement savings planning, annuity alternative comparison, and longevity benefit illustration') and gives very explicit call-time instructions: call immediately, do not ask for missing values, pass only stated inputs. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of full alternative-routing guidance.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Savvly/savvly-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server