Skip to main content
Glama

Numeratica — financial planning calculations

tax_estimated_tax

Tax estimated tax. Numeratica POST /v1/tax/estimated-tax — 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": "tax_estimated_tax"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tax_yearNo
withholdingNo
filing_statusNo
prior_year_agiNo
prior_year_taxNo
underpayment_rateNo
estimated_paymentsNo
projected_current_taxNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return format (JSON with result_id, engine_version, disclaimer) and the reproducible Monte Carlo behavior, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or performance implications.

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 short (two sentences) but repetitively starts with 'Tax estimated tax'. It front-loads the endpoint and return info, but lacks structure. It is adequate but could be more concise and better organized.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It mentions return fields but does not cover parameter relationships, defaults, or how inputs affect the computation, leaving significant gaps for a complex financial tool.

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% for 8 parameters. The description only says 'See the input schema for the accepted fields', adding no meaning beyond the schema. No parameter explanations, constraints, or examples are provided.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Tax estimated tax' is vague and tautological. It mentions the endpoint and return fields but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'tax_estimate' or 'tax_bracket_room', making it unclear when this specific tool should be used.

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 vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions that would make this tool preferable over others.

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.