Skip to main content
Glama

Numeratica — financial planning calculations

equity_comp_nua

Equity comp nua. Numeratica POST /v1/equity-comp/nua — returns JSON with result_id, engine_version, and a not-advice disclaimer (seed echoed for reproducible Monte Carlo where applicable). See the input schema for the accepted fields.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "equity_comp_nua"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tax_yearNo
ltcg_rateNo
cost_basisNo
sale_priceNo
growth_rateNo
market_valueNo
discount_rateNo
filing_statusNo
years_to_saleNo
marginal_ordinary_rateNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavior. It mentions return JSON structure and a Monte Carlo seed, but omits that the tool is a POST request, any side effects, permissions, or that it is a calculation (likely read-only). Minimal disclosure.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is very short (2 sentences), but excessive brevity comes at the cost of missing critical information. The first sentence ('Equity comp nua.') is redundant with the tool name, wasting the opening slot.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given NUA's complexity, 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's purpose, parameter semantics, or usage context, making it inadequate for correct agent invocation.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 10 parameters (e.g., tax_year, ltcg_rate, cost_basis). The instruction 'See the input schema' does not compensate because the schema itself has no descriptions. Agent cannot understand parameter meanings.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states 'Equity comp nua' and provides the endpoint, which hints at the tool's role in Net Unrealized Appreciation calculations. However, it fails to explain what NUA is or differentiate itself from sibling equity comp tools like equity_comp_iso or equity_comp_nso.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other equity compensation tools). No context or exclusions provided.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.