bc_home_flipping_taxEstimate British Columbia's home flipping tax on a property sold within 730 days: 20% tapering to 0% between 366 and 730 days, with a $20,000 primary-residence deduction (only if held at least 365 days).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| daysHeld | Yes | Days owned before the sale | |
| taxableIncome | Yes | Proceeds minus cost to acquire minus cost to improve (may be negative) | |
| isPrimaryResidence | No | Lived in it as a primary residence |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "daysHeld": 500,
+ "taxableIncome": 120000
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / daysHeld / descriptionPrevious value: -"Number of days the property was owned before sale"New value: +"Days owned before the sale"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive calculation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the 20%-to-0% taper, the 366-730 day range, and the $20,000 deduction condition. It does not specify the exact return shape or edge-case behavior, so it falls short of a 5.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause contributes either jurisdiction, scope, rate schedule, or deduction eligibility.
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?
For a simple three-parameter calculator with no output schema, the description provides the essential formula and eligibility rules. It is nearly complete, though it could clarify the exact return value and treatment of edge cases such as sales outside the 730-day window.
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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description still adds computational meaning by tying the taper to days held and conditioning the deduction on holding at least 365 days, which helps interpret `daysHeld` and `isPrimaryResidence` beyond their schema text.
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 states a specific verb and resource: estimating British Columbia's home flipping tax. It adds scope and the exact tax-rate structure, which clearly distinguishes it from the generic sibling `house_flipping` and other tax calculators.
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?
Usage is implied by the stated 730-day sale window and primary-residence condition, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as `house_flipping` or `capital_gains_tax`. No exclusions or alternative scenarios are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.