get_llc_feesOfficial LLC formation fee, recurring annual-report/franchise-tax cost, processing time, and known gotchas for a single US state, each with its source URL. Covers all 50 states + DC.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | Yes | Two-letter state code or full state name, e.g. "WY" or "Wyoming". All 50 states + DC. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it specifies that each data point includes a source URL, and mentions 'known gotchas' which are not obvious from the tool name or schema. This helps the agent anticipate the richness and reliability of the response.
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, information-dense sentence. It lists all key output components (fee, cost, processing time, gotchas, source URLs) without unnecessary words. The title is clear and the description is front-loaded with the most important information.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully conveys what the agent should expect: multiple fee-related data points with source URLs. It covers scope (all 50 states + DC) and data types, making it complete for its complexity level.
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 coverage is 100%, and the parameter description already explains the state format and scope. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond reinforcing that it covers all 50 states + DC, which is already present in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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's purpose: to provide official LLC formation fees, recurring annual-report/franchise-tax costs, processing time, and gotchas for a single US state. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying 'single US state' and enumerating the data returned, which differs from comparison or deadline-specific tools.
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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: when you need fee-related information for one specific state. It implies that for multi-state comparisons, other tools like compare_llc_costs would be appropriate, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. Sibling names are visible to the agent, providing additional context.
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 clearly distinct purposes, but get_llc_fees and compare_llc_costs both return cost data, which could cause mis-selection for single-state fee queries. Similarly, check_llc_name and list_filing_states both touch on name-checking capabilities, though one actually performs a check and the other lists support.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (check_, compare_, get_, list_, preview_, submit_). The verbs are varied but the structure is uniform and readable.
8 tools is well-scoped for the LLC research-to-order workflow. Each tool earns its place, covering name checks, cost comparisons, fee details, deadlines, filing capabilities, and the order preview/submit flow.
The toolset covers the entire pre-sales and order placement journey: research (name, fees, costs, deadlines, options, filing states) and submission (preview, submit). Minor gap: there is no post-submission order status tool, but this may be outside the server's purpose.