tax_state_bracketsReturn selected state individual income-tax bracket references. Demo mode is limited to Georgia 2026.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | Yes | ||
| state | Yes | Two-letter state code, for example GA. | |
| filing_status | No | Optional filing status. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds a valuable constraint: demo mode is limited to Georgia 2026, which helps set expectations about supported inputs beyond what annotations provide.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the critical demo constraint. Every word earns its place; no redundant details.
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?
Annotations cover safety, but the phrase 'bracket references' is somewhat vague regarding return format (rates, thresholds, ranges). With no output schema, the description should clarify what exactly is returned and how unsupported states are handled beyond the demo limitation.
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 descriptions already cover state and filing_status, and year has a default. The description only rephrases 'state' as 'selected state' and adds the demo limitation, without adding deeper param semantics. Moderate schema coverage does not force heavy compensation.
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?
The description states a specific action ('Return') and resource ('selected state individual income-tax bracket references'). The qualifier 'state' clearly differentiates it from the sibling tool tax_federal_brackets, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 description implies when to use it (for state-level brackets) but does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives like tax_federal_brackets or tax_calculate. The context is clear but exclusions are left to inference.
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.
Multiple tools have genuinely blurry boundaries: company_change vs company_changes differ only by singular/plural yet serve different purposes, company_domain vs company_classify vs company_lookup_auto all accept a domain, geo_zip_lookup vs geo_enrich vs geo_zip_batch all return ZIP profiles, and email_validate subsumes much of email_disposable and email_free_provider. The domain prefixes help narrow search space, but within many domains an agent cannot reliably predict which tool is the right one.
All 129 tools uniformly follow a snake_case [domain]_[topic] convention (company_, fx_, geo_, dns_, weather_, tax_), which is highly predictable and consistent. Minor deviations include the confusing company_change/company_changes pair, and inconsistent suffix usage (_batch appears on address_validate_batch, company_domains_batch, geo_zip_batch but not on equivalent lookup tools elsewhere).
129 tools far exceeds the 50+ extreem-mismatch threshold, bundling roughly 28 unrelated data domains (weather, fx, tax, ccompany, dns, jobs, flight, email, phone, tax...) into a single MCP surface. Even focusing on one domain forces the agent to load an enormous unrelated tool list; this should be split into many smaller domain-specific servers.
Per-domain coverage is impressively thorough: weather spans current/forecast/hourly/historical/normals/marine/route/air-quality, fx covers rates/convert/historical/volatility/correlation/strenth, and company includes lookup/enrichment/networks/timeline/peer-comparison plus six buyer-tuned signals with profile-introspection tools. Minor gaps like flight being historical-only and smtp probes skipping major email providers are documented scope decisions rather than dead ends.