formation_get_filing_feeGetFilingFee returns the state formation filing fee (table amount, formatted string, and Stripe Price id when charged via a pre-created Price). Used by the onboarding review/certificate step. Stateless lookup — no formation context required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| formatted | No | ||
| amountCents | No | ||
| stripePriceId | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds meaningful behavior: it is a stateless lookup, and it details the return types including a conditional Stripe Price id. No contradictions with annotations.
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 tightly written in three sentences: front-loaded purpose, then output details, then usage context. Every sentence contributes necessary information without redundancy or fluff.
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 the presence of an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, return value contents, usage context, and statelessness. It omits details like whether 'state' is required or behavior when omitted, but these are not critical given the simplicity and overall description quality.
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?
The input schema has only one parameter 'state' with a pattern but no description, resulting in 0% coverage. The description implicitly indicates the state is the entity whose filing fee is returned, but does not explain expected casing, optionality, or default behavior. This provides only partial compensation for the lack of schema documentation.
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 returns the state formation filing fee, specifying the exact output components (table amount, formatted string, Stripe Price id). It distinguishes this from sibling formation tools by scoping to filing fees and noting it's a stateless lookup.
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 explicitly mentions it is used by the onboarding review/certificate step and that it requires no formation context, providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for correct selection.
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.