Skip to main content
Glama

Numeratica — financial planning calculations

tax_gain_harvesting

Tax gain harvesting. Numeratica POST /v1/tax/gain-harvesting — 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_gain_harvesting"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
magiNo
tax_yearNo
filing_statusNo
realize_amountNo
taxable_incomeNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions it is a POST request and returns specific fields, but does not indicate whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The Monte Carlo reproducibility note adds some value, but overall transparency is low.

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 not optimal. The first sentence is redundant with the tool name, and the API endpoint detail is technical. Could be more concise and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given the complexity of tax gain harvesting and 5 undocumented parameters, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the computation, the meaning of result fields, or how to interpret the output. The lack of an output schema exacerbates this gap.

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 adds no explanation of parameter meanings. It merely instructs to 'see the input schema', leaving the agent without clarity on what each parameter does or how they relate to tax gain harvesting.

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 identifies the tool as 'Tax gain harvesting' but does not clearly state what it does beyond returning JSON. It lacks a specific verb describing the action (e.g., 'calculate' or 'optimize') and does not differentiate from sibling tools like tax_loss_harvesting.

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. The description simply points to the input schema, providing no context on prerequisites or typical use cases.

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.