Skip to main content
Glama
pedronahum

JACTUS MCP Server

by pedronahum

jactus_simulate_contract

Simulate an ACTUS financial contract to generate structured cash flow events, payoffs, and timing, supporting all 18 contract types, risk factors, time series, and composite contracts.

Instructions

Simulate an ACTUS contract and return structured cash flow events.

Creates a contract from the provided attributes, runs the ACTUS simulation engine, and returns all generated events with payoffs, timing, and optional contract state snapshots. Supports ALL 18 contract types including composite contracts (SWAPS, CAPFL, CEG, CEC) via the child_contracts parameter.

Common workflow:

  1. Use jactus_get_contract_schema to get required fields for your contract type

  2. Build the attributes dict with those fields

  3. Call this tool to simulate

  4. Examine the events and summary in the response

Risk factor observer selection (in priority order):

  1. time_series - Time-varying market data with interpolation (for rate resets)

  2. risk_factors - Fixed per-identifier values (for static market data)

  3. constant_value - Single constant for all risk factors (default: 0.0)

Output size management:

  • For contracts with many events, use event_limit and event_offset to paginate

  • If include_states=True produces output that is too large, events are auto-truncated to first 5 + last 5, with a pagination hint in the response

Args: attributes: Contract attributes dict. Must include contract_type (e.g., "PAM"), status_date (ISO date), contract_role ("RPA" or "RPL"), and type-specific required fields. Use jactus_get_contract_schema to see required fields. risk_factors: Dict mapping risk factor identifiers to constant values. Example: {"LIBOR-3M": 0.05, "USD/EUR": 1.18} time_series: Dict mapping identifiers to time-value pairs for time-varying data. Each entry is [date_string, value]. Example: {"LIBOR-3M": [["2024-01-01", 0.04], ["2024-07-01", 0.045]]} interpolation: Interpolation method for time_series: "step" (default) or "linear". Step uses the most recent known value; linear interpolates between points. Note: both modes give identical results when query dates exactly match data points. To see differences, use data points at different dates than resets. extrapolation: Extrapolation method for time_series: "flat" (default) or "raise". Flat returns the nearest endpoint value; raise returns an error. constant_value: Constant risk factor value (default 0.0). Used only when neither risk_factors nor time_series is provided. include_states: If True, include contract state before/after each event. Warning: this significantly increases output size for contracts with many events. event_limit: Maximum number of events to return. Use with event_offset for pagination. The summary always covers all events regardless. event_offset: Number of events to skip from the beginning (default 0). child_contracts: Dict mapping child identifiers to their attribute dicts. Required for composite contracts (SWAPS, CAPFL, CEG, CEC). Each child is simulated first, then its results are fed into the parent contract. The identifiers must match those referenced in the parent's contract_structure. Example for SWAPS: {"LEG1": {PAM attrs...}, "LEG2": {PAM attrs...}} Example for CAPFL/CEG/CEC: {"LOAN-001": {PAM attrs...}}

Returns: Dict with: success, contract_type, num_events, events (list of event dicts), summary (total_inflows, total_outflows, net_cashflow, first/last_event), initial_state, final_state, child_results (if child_contracts provided). If paginated: includes pagination dict. On error: success=False, error, error_type, hint.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
attributesYes
event_limitNo
time_seriesNo
event_offsetNo
risk_factorsNo
extrapolationNoflat
interpolationNostep
constant_valueNo
include_statesNo
child_contractsNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it explains auto-truncation of states, pagination, error response structure, and risk factor observer selection. It discloses all relevant side effects and constraints.

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 well-structured with headers and bullet points, front-loading the core purpose. It is somewhat lengthy but justified by the tool complexity; every sentence adds value.

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 high complexity (10 parameters, nested objects, composite contracts), the description is complete: it covers workflow, risk factors, pagination, child contracts, and error handling. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description still adds essential context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description adds extensive meaning for all 10 parameters, including examples, defaults, and usage notes. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 description clearly states the tool simulates an ACTUS contract and returns structured cash flow events. It differentiates from sibling tools like jactus_list_contracts and jactus_get_contract_info by specifying its unique function and workflow.

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 provides a common workflow and priority order for risk factor selection. While it gives clear context, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, missing some exclusions.

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/pedronahum/JACTUS-MCP'

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