Projects compounded asset growth from initial capital and monthly contributions at a given annual rate, helping users plan savings for real estate goals.
Calculate compounded asset growth with initial capital and monthly contributions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| years | Yes | ||
| initial_10k | Yes | ||
| annual_rate_pct | Yes | ||
| monthly_contribution_10k | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description gives no behavioral details beyond the basic calculation. It does not disclose side effects, return value format, or any assumptions (e.g., compounding frequency).
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 description is very concise (one sentence) but at the cost of omitting critical details. It is front-loaded with the purpose, yet too brief to be fully effective.
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?
Given 4 required parameters, no schema descriptions, and a lack of behavioral context, the description is not complete enough. It does not leverage the existing output schema to explain return values, leaving the agent undersupplied.
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 adds minimal meaning: it mentions 'initial capital' and 'monthly contributions' but does not explain they are in units of 10,000. The other parameters (annual_rate_pct, years) are left to inference.
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 states the tool calculates compounded asset growth with initial capital and monthly contributions. This verb+resource specification is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on loans, rents, trades, etc.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or contexts where another tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.