網紅業配收入扣繳試算：執行業務所得扣繳 10%、二代健保補充保費 2.11%，回傳實拿金額。
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"amount": "<amount>"
},
"name": "calc_creator_withholding"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | ||
| amount | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the computation model (10% withholding + 2.11% supplementary premium) and the return value (實拿金額). What remains undisclosed is how the two income kinds alter the rates and whether any edge cases or limits apply.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence that packs the purpose, the two rate components, and the output into no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 2-parameter calculator with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the output semantics and the rate logic adequately, but leaves the pivotal 'kind' parameter and the 9A/92 distinction entirely unexplained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the parameters. Critically, the 'kind' enum (9A / 92) is unexplained, yet these codes almost certainly select different withholding regimes, so the agent cannot tell which to pass. 'amount' is self-evident but the enum gap is substantial.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (試算/withholding calculation) and resource (網紅業配收入扣繳), and even names the constituent rates (10% 執行業務所得扣繳, 2.11% 二代健保). It is easily distinguished from siblings like calc_group_buy_profit or platform_fees.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The scenario is implied by the phrase 網紅業配收入 (influencer sponsorship income), so an agent can infer when it applies. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when not to use it, and no routing to or away from sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.