accounting_preview_schedulePreviewSchedule computes the straight-line per-period split for the given amount and period count without persisting anything. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| startDate | No | ||
| periodCount | No | ||
| totalAmount | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| postings | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'without persisting anything' and 'Read-only' largely duplicate that safety profile. It adds the straight-line calculation method but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as failure modes, auth requirements, or precisely how startDate affects the result.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action. However, it redundantly states 'without persisting anything' and 'Read-only,' which are essentially the same point, slightly undermining efficiency.
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 3-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and safety profile. But it lacks explicit usage guidance and fails to explain startDate, making it only minimally complete for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.
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 must compensate for parameter meaning. It mentions 'amount and period count' but omits startDate entirely, leaving its role in the calculation unclear. It also does not clarify formats beyond the schema patterns or whether all parameters are required despite schema stating none are required.
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 computes a straight-line per-period split for a given amount and period count, which is a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly notes that nothing is persisted, distinguishing it from schedule creation and retrieval tools like accounting_create_schedule and accounting_get_schedule.
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?
The description implies a preview use case by stating 'without persisting anything,' which contrasts with creation tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to use this tool versus others. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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.
Multiple tool pairs are nearly identical (formation_extract_cap_table / formation_extract_cap_table_ocr; formation_start_formation / formation_create_formation), and several tools lack descriptions, making selection ambiguous. The scale of 202 tools with overlapping summaries (e.g., multiple cap-table summary tools) compounds the confusion.
Dominant snake_case `module_verb_noun` pattern, but with notable deviations: `captable_send_safe_for_signature` uses an inconsistent abbreviation, `check_company_name_availability` lacks a module prefix, and `get_list_` vs `list_` prefixes are mixed. Readable but not fully consistent.
202 tools is far beyond any reasonable surface for a single server, even a broad platform. The sheer number overwhelms and makes tool discovery impractical; many tools are peripheral (ads metrics) to the core formation purpose.
The domain appears well covered: formation flows, cap-table lifecycle (import, close, simulate), accounting (journal entries, periods, schedules), cards, documents, and transactions all have CRUD or lifecycle operations. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no card deletion, no counterparty creation), but they are unlikely to cause dead ends.