Calculate monthly free cashflow after loan payments and living costs to show how much cash remains each month.
Calculate monthly free cashflow after debt service and costs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| monthly_income_10k | Yes | ||
| monthly_living_cost_10k | Yes | ||
| other_monthly_costs_10k | No | ||
| monthly_loan_payment_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 provided, so description carries full burden. It states 'after debt service and costs' but does not explain what costs are included, whether output is positive/negative, or units (parameters are in 10k units). Minimal behavioral disclosure.
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?
Single sentence, 7 words, efficient and front-loaded. However, brevity sacrifices necessary detail for a financial calculation tool.
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?
With 4 parameters, an output schema (unseen), and no annotations, description is too sparse. It does not mention output type, edge cases, or formula logic. Incomplete for agent understanding.
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%. Description does not explain parameter units (10k), what 'other_monthly_costs' includes, or how parameters relate to the formula. The names and defaults provide some hint but description adds no value beyond schema.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'calculate' and resource 'monthly free cashflow after debt service and costs'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like calculate_loan_payment by focusing on cashflow after expenses.
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 guidance on when or when not to use this tool. It implies use for cashflow calculation, but misses comparisons with siblings like calculate_compound_growth or other financial tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.