Calculate UK Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) for a residential property.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| price | Yes | Purchase price in £ | |
| non_resident | No | True if buyer not UK resident (+2% surcharge) | |
| first_time_buyer | No | True for first-time buyer relief (up to £300k nil rate) | |
| additional_property | No | True if buying additional property (+5% surcharge) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'calculate' implies a side-effect-free pure computation, but it does not disclose facts like whether rates are current, whether it provides a breakdown, or any caveats. This is minimal but arguably sufficient for a simple calculator.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.
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 simple calculator with a well-documented schema and an output schema present, the description is adequate. It could mention rate jurisdiction or that it's for residential only, but that's in the description. The schema fills in parameter details, and the output schema presumably describes returns. A 4 is appropriate.
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?
Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, which already explains price, non_resident, first_time_buyer, and additional_property effects.
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 clearly states it calculates UK Stamp Duty Land Tax for residential property, using a specific verb ('calculate') and resource ('SDLT'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are all property search/analysis tools with no tax component.
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 usage for residential property SDLT calculations but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives, though no siblings overlap in function. The context is clear but not fully explicit.
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.
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes (company records, planning URLs, transactions, EPC, rentals, listings). The main overlap is between property_yield, rental_analysis, and property_comps, which all touch rental/comparable calculations, but descriptions clarify their focus. property_report aggregates many data points but is distinct as a one-stop pull.
Tool names use lowercase with underscores but mix action-style names (company_search, rightmove_listing) with noun-style names (property_blocks, property_report). Some abbreviations like 'ppd' and 'comps' are inconsistent with longer names. The pattern is readable but not uniform.
13 tools is well-scoped for a comprehensive property intelligence server. Each tool covers a distinct data source or workflow, and the count is not overwhelming.
The surface covers company data, planning portal access, transactions, comparables, EPC, rental analysis, listings, and stamp duty. It lacks planning application data (only URLs) and some niche property checks, but core residential and investment workflows are supported.