Numeratica — financial planning calculations

tax_liquidation_schedule

Tax liquidation schedule. Numeratica POST /v1/tax/liquidation-schedule — 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_liquidation_schedule"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tax_year`	No
`objective`	No
`cost_basis`	No
`other_ltcg`	No
`growth_rate`	No
`market_value`	No
`filing_status`	No
`horizon_years`	No
`state_tax_rate`	No
`max_annual_gain`	No
`other_ordinary_income`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedJul 27, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses it is a POST operation, returns JSON with specific fields, and includes a not-advice disclaimer, but with no annotations, it lacks information on idempotency, side effects, or permissions. The Monte Carlo reproducibility note is helpful.

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 concise with two sentences, but the endpoint URL is unnecessary developer detail that could be omitted. Otherwise, no extra fluff.

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 11 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It covers output format but lacks essential context on how to use the tool and what the parameters mean.

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 only says 'See the input schema' without adding any meaning to the 11 parameters. It fails to explain what each parameter does or how they affect results.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states it is a tax liquidation schedule and mentions the endpoint and output format, but it does not differentiate from sibling tax tools like tax_gain_harvesting or tax_estimated_tax.

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, no prerequisites or typical scenarios mentioned. Only directs to schema for parameters, which is insufficient.

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

All Numeratica — financial planning calculations tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.