FactLot

1031 exchange deadlines, identification, and boot

calc_exchange_1031

Read-onlyIdempotent

Not tax advice: arithmetic only. The 45-day identification and 180-day exchange deadlines of IRC §1031(a)(3) (the exchange period ends earlier at a given tax-return due date), the three-property, 200%, and 95% identification tests of Treas. Reg. §1.1031(k)-1(c)(4), and the cash boot, mortgage boot, debt replacement, and trade-down of an exchange, with the boot-limited gain when the basis is given. Deterministic: use this instead of doing the math yourself; cite formula calc.exchange_1031@2 and the returned steps, and surface any warnings.

Tool call template

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": {
      "relinquished_transfer_date": "<relinquished_transfer_date>",
      "relinquished": "<relinquished>"
    },
    "name": "calc_exchange_1031"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`as_of`	No	Date to count the days remaining from, YYYY-MM-DD. Optional.
`replacement`	No	The property acquired (in total). Omit to check only the deadlines and identification.
`relinquished`	Yes	The property given up.
`tax_return_due_date`	No	Due date, including extensions, of the taxpayer's federal return for the year of the transfer, YYYY-MM-DD. IRC §1031(a)(3)(B) ends the exchange period on this date if it is earlier than day 180. FactLot does not compute it.
`cash_received_at_sale`	No	Cash the taxpayer took from the sale proceeds instead of leaving them with the qualified intermediary, USD.
`identified_properties`	No	Replacement properties identified in writing. Empty to skip the identification checks.
`relinquished_transfer_date`	Yes	Date the relinquished property was transferred (closed), YYYY-MM-DD. With several relinquished properties, the earliest transfer starts both periods.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description adds behavior beyond them: deterministic arithmetic, a versioned formula citation (calc.exchange_1031@2), returned steps, and warnings that must be surfaced, plus the 'not tax advice' disclaimer. It does not describe output shape or the conditions that trigger warnings, keeping it short of a 5.

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 disclaimer is correctly front-loaded and the content is dense rather than padded, but the middle sentence is a long legal-citation run-on that packs deadlines, three identification tests, and four boot concepts into one breath, making it harder to scan than it needs to be.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter nested calculator with no output schema, the description covers the statutory scope, the optional branches (omit replacement to check deadlines only, empty identification array to skip tests), determinism, and the need to surface warnings. Only the shape of returned steps/results is left implicit.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented, including that adjusted_basis adds realized and boot-limited gain. The description only summarizes the domain concepts (boot, debt replacement, trade-down, basis) that the schema already spells out per field, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Names the exact resource and computations: the 45/180-day deadlines of IRC §1031(a)(3), the three-property/200%/95% identification tests of Treas. Reg. §1.1031(k)-1(c)(4), and cash/mortgage boot with debt replacement. It also frames itself as arithmetic rather than advice, which clearly separates it from the other calc_* siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

States an explicit directive: 'use this instead of doing the math yourself' and to cite the formula id and surface warnings. It does not state when not to use it (e.g., that it will not structure an exchange or compute the return due date), so the coverage is clear but not complete.

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

All FactLot 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.