Get crypto capital-gains tax rate brackets by jurisdiction — US, UK, DE, AU, CA, IN, AE, SG (educational reference) — Reference crypto tax-rate brackets across supported jurisdictions (US, UK, DE, AU, CA, IN, AE, SG, OTHER) for the tax calculator. Educational only — not tax advice. Cached ~1hr.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description adds 'Cached ~1hr' and 'Educational only — not tax advice,' but fails to disclose error handling, rate limits, or what happens for unsupported jurisdictions.
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?
Two sentences, no wasted words. First sentence provides purpose and scope, second adds important caveats.
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 no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (tax brackets by jurisdiction) and includes context on caching and educational use.
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?
No parameters exist in schema; description fully defines the tool's functionality by listing jurisdictions and stating that it returns tax rate brackets.
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 verb and resource: 'Get crypto capital-gains tax rate brackets by jurisdiction'. It lists supported jurisdictions and distinguishes from siblings, none of which relate to taxes.
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?
Explicitly states usage as 'Reference crypto tax-rate brackets ... for the tax calculator' and includes a disclaimer 'Educational only — not tax advice.' Lacks explicit when-not or alternatives, but no competing tax tools exist among siblings.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there are a few pairs with overlapping boundaries (e.g., analysts_signals vs analysts_signals_all, whale_movements vs whale_movements_summary) that could cause minor confusion.
Naming is predominantly snake_case and descriptive, with minor inconsistencies in plural/singular forms (e.g., 'analysts' vs 'analyst_archive'). Overall pattern is stable.
With 55 tools, the server is quite heavy. While the scope is broad, many tools are history/monthly variants that could be combined, making the count feel inflated beyond what is ideal for a single server.
The tool set covers a wide range of crypto analytics domains (analysts, arbitrage, funding, whales, sentiment, etc.). Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct token price endpoint), but overall it's a comprehensive surface.