Moltline TaxLots

Form 8949 Rows

form_8949_rows

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lay the disposals out as Form 8949 rows with box categories and totals. PREMIUM (license).

Typical input {"disposals": , "tax_year": 2026, "default_reporting": "proceeds_only"} returns {"part_i": {"B": [rows]}, "part_ii": {"E": [rows]}, "totals": {...}}. Columns follow the form: description (a), date acquired (b), date sold (c), proceeds (d), cost or other basis (e), code (f), adjustment (g), gain or loss (h). Box: A/D when the broker reported proceeds and basis, B/E when proceeds only, C/F when no broker form - set per row in reporting {row_id: value} or for all rows with default_reporting. Use to draft the schedule from computed disposals. Not a filing: check the current form instructions. Errors: on invalid, missing, or malformed input this tool never raises a protocol error — it returns {"error": ""} (for example {"error": "disposals must be a non-empty list from build_lots"}). Every call is read-only and idempotent, so after correcting the input it is always safe to retry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tax_year`	Yes	the calendar year of the disposals to include.
`disposals`	Yes	rows from build_lots.
`reporting`	No	per-row override: proceeds_and_basis, proceeds_only or none.
`whole_dollars`	No	round each row to whole dollars as the form permits.
`default_reporting`	No	proceeds_and_basis, proceeds_only or none (default).	none

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses important behavior: it never raises a protocol error and returns a structured error object with remediation guidance, it is safe to retry after correction, and it produces category-specific output (part_i/part_ii and box groupings). It also clarifies that it is not a filing action, adding meaningful context beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is longer than average but each major block earns its place: purpose, example, column mapping, box logic, usage note, error behavior, and retry safety. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor redundancy exists—read-only and idempotent are already in annotations—and the 'PREMIUM (license)' note is irrelevant noise, but overall it is well structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has five parameters, nested objects, an output schema, and meaningful sibling relationships, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the required input source, the output shape, box category logic, parameter overrides, error behavior, and the non-filing caveat. An agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly without inspecting other tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds valuable meaning by showing a typical input shape, explaining that disposals must come from build_lots, clarifying the reporting/default_reporting values and box mappings, and illustrating the output structure. This exceeds the baseline but does not exhaustively expand on every parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lay the disposals out as Form 8949 rows with box categories and totals' and later says 'Use to draft the schedule from computed disposals.' It clearly differentiates from siblings by tying the input to build_lots and positioning the tool as form drafting rather than lot building, transfer matching, or reconciliation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says when to use it ('Use to draft the schedule from computed disposals') and gives a strong usage precondition ('disposals from build_lots'). It also warns 'Not a filing: check the current form instructions,' which helps set expectations. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Moltline TaxLots tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each of the eight tools targets a distinct stage or analysis: import normalization, ledger validation, transfer pairing, lot building, Form 8949 formatting, broker-form reconciliation, wash-sale checking, and LP math. No two tools could be reasonably confused for one another.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are all lowercase snake_case and readable, but they mix verb_object forms like parse_transactions, match_transfers, and build_lots with noun-first compound forms like ledger_lint, lp_position_math, and wash_window_check. The convention is not uniform enough to be 'mostly consistent,' though it is still predictable from the domain.

Tool Count5/5

Eight tools is a well-scoped size for a crypto tax-lot workflow; each tool covers a necessary step without redundant helpers. The count feels neither thin nor bloated.

Completeness5/5

The toolset covers the full pipeline from transaction import through linting, transfer matching, lot building, tax form row generation, 1099-DA reconciliation, and wash-sale review. The standalone LP math tool addresses a relevant adjacent need, and there are no obvious dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?