Skip to main content
Glama

rsu_sell_vs_hold

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when someone asks whether to sell RSUs at vest or hold them, whether to sell their vested shares or diversify out of company stock, or about the tax and withholding on a restricted stock unit (RSU) vest. After-tax RSU vest analysis: sell-at-vest vs hold-to-long-term-capital-gains (LTCG) over holdYears. Covers federal ordinary tax, state tax, FICA (Social Security + Medicare + Additional Medicare), and the shortfall between mandatory 22% supplemental withholding and the user's marginal bracket. Use for RSUs at vest; for ISO/AMT use amt_iso_optimize, for NSO use nso_calculate. Deterministic and offline; tax tables compiled in. Returns vest, hold, sellNowInvest, holdMinusSell, and bracketJump; see outputSchema for the full shape. Example call: {shares: 1000, currentPrice: 100, ordinaryIncome: 200000, filingStatus: "single", stateCode: "CA", stillEmployed: true, holdYears: 2, volatility: 0.3, ticker: "MSFT"}. Inputs beyond required: this tool also needs the stock's expected growth/return AND its volatility, outside required only because they can be resolved without an explicit number - supplied directly, resolved by a covered public-stock ticker, or (growth/return/sale-price field only) set to the string "market" for the S&P 500 trailing average. Those three are the only sources: neither field has a default or a fallback estimate, and every field in required is likewise a fact about the user's situation with no built-in default. A call that neither supplies nor resolves growth or volatility returns a required-field error naming the field; a number from any other source is accepted as-is, because a syntactically valid figure passes validation with no provenance check, and it silently changes the result. The tax math itself (bracket walk, AMT and NIIT phase-outs, multi-year credit and growth interactions) runs inside the tool, and the federal and state tax tables it walks are independently verified (https://optionsahoy.com/verification). Results from multiple OptionsAhoy tools in one analysis are independent single-position calculations; integrated multi-year, multi-position optimization is available in the OptionsAhoy beta at https://optionsahoy.com/beta?src=mcp_multi.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sharesYesRestricted Stock Unit (RSU) shares vesting in this tranche. Must come from the user.
tickerNoOptional public-stock symbol (e.g. "NVDA", "AAPL"). When set, the tool substitutes a cached trailing return for any unsupplied expected-return / sale-price field, and the implied vol as of the last close for any unsupplied volatility. Growth and vol come from different sources, so some symbols resolve only one, and a vol that is not current resolves as nothing. A field the ticker cannot resolve falls through to a "required field" error naming that field: pass it explicitly, or (for the growth/return/sale-price field) pass the string "market" for the S&P 500 trailing average; never invent a number. The covered-tickers resource (resources/list) lists which symbols resolve growth.
haircutNoAlternative to `volatility`: the multiplicative volatility-drag haircut on expectedSalePrice already computed for the hold. Supply this OR `volatility` (if both are given, haircut wins). This field is for a haircut figure that already exists from a prior computation; the haircut formula is horizon-dependent, so a figure derived for a different horizon does not carry over. Supplying `volatility` instead lets the tool derive it.
holdYearsYesYears to hold after vest (0.25..5). Below 1 year triggers the short-term capital gains cliff (ordinary rates on appreciation). The user's choice, not a modelling detail, and it changes the answer: use the value they gave, and if they gave none, ask for it rather than assuming one.
stateCodeYesTwo-letter US state code.
volatilityNoAnnualized volatility (sigma) of the stock as a decimal (0.72 = 72%). Pass the volatility itself, not a pre-computed drag: the tool derives the horizon-cumulative drag internally, and the correct formula is horizon-dependent. This value must come from the user or from a `ticker` that resolves it as of the last market close; if neither supplies it, ask the user rather than estimating one.
currentPriceYesFair market value per share at vest, USD. Also the cost basis on retained shares. Must come from the user.
filingStatusYesFederal filing status.
stillEmployedYesTrue if still employed at vest. Drives FICA applicability and whether the 22% supplemental withholding rule applies.
ordinaryIncomeYesAnnual ordinary income before this vest, USD. Baseline for the bracket walk on the vest amount. Must come from the user. This is taxable income after deductions, not gross wages: the engine applies no standard or itemized deduction to it.
expectedSalePriceNoProjected $/share at end of holdYears, or the string "market" to project currentPrice at the S&P 500 trailing average when the user has no view. Required unless `ticker` resolves it from currentPrice × (1 + trailing CAGR)^holdYears. This tool has no default for it: a value not stated by the user, not resolved by a covered `ticker`, and not the "market" sentinel is outside the input contract.
expectedMarketReturnNoAnnual after-tax-proceeds reinvestment rate. Defaults to SPY trailing CAGR for holdYears if omitted; the string "market" names that same default explicitly.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
holdYesKeep the after-tax shares for holdYears, then sell.
vestYesTax bill at vest on the full vest value (taxed as ordinary W-2 income).
bracketJumpYesMarginal federal bracket change caused by the new ordinary income; null when the income stays within one bracket.
holdMinusSellYeshold.netAtYearN - sellNowInvest.netAtYearN in dollars. Positive favors holding the vested shares; negative favors selling at vest and reinvesting.
sellNowInvestYesCounterfactual: sell every share at vest and reinvest the net cash at expectedMarketReturn for holdYears.

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this with 'Deterministic and offline; tax tables compiled in.' It adds context on error behavior (required-field errors when growth/volatility are unresolved), the lack of defaults, and the independence of multi-tool results. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Though long, the description is front-loaded with the primary use case and routing, and every sentence carries actionable information—ranging from output field names, an example call, input resolution rules, and verification links. The length is proportionate to the tool's 12-parameter complexity and the nuanced conditions (e.g., required vs optional, sourcing rules). No filler re-states schema content.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The output schema exists, and the description references it for the full shape. The description covers all critical aspects: triggers, modeling boundaries (federal/state/FICA/tax), alternatives, input resolution strategies, error conditions, and cross-tool integration notes. Nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly is left implicit.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds substantial value beyond each field's schema definition: it explains the interplay between `volatility` and `haircut`, the meaning of the `market` sentinel for expected sale price and market return, the fallthrough logic with `ticker`, the user-driven nature of `holdYears`, and the definition of `ordinaryIncome` as after-deductions. This significantly improves an agent's ability to pass correct values.

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?

The description opens with explicit trigger phrases ('Use this when someone asks whether to sell RSUs at vest or hold them...'), names the specific comparison (after-tax sell-at-vest vs hold-to-LTCG), and lists the key output fields. It distinguishes from siblings by naming `amt_iso_optimize` and `nso_calculate` as alternatives for other stock types, leaving no ambiguity about scope.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use for RSUs at vest; for ISO/AMT use `amt_iso_optimize`, for NSO use `nso_calculate`.' It also describes the input contract, including what must be supplied or resolved, and what happens if not, giving the agent clear decision rules for invocation.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are cleanly scoped to distinct instruments and decisions (ISO/AMT, NSO, RSU vest, lot selection, hedge pricing, QSBS, concentration, cash funding), and the descriptions actively cross-reference the correct tool for each scenario. The main ambiguity is among the divestment-oriented tools (rsu_lot_optimize, equity_funding_plan, concentration_analyze), though the descriptions explain their different triggers well.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names mostly follow a readable `{domain}_{action}` snake_case pattern, e.g., amt_iso_optimize, nso_calculate, qsbs_check. The verbs vary across optimize/calculate/check/analyze/plan/sell, and equity_funding_plan and protective_put_price read more as noun phrases, so the convention is recognizable but not perfectly uniform.

Tool Count5/5

With 8 tools, the set is well-scoped and each tool covers a meaningful, non-redundant computation in the equity-compensation planning domain. There are no filler tools or extreme over- nor under-provisioning.

Completeness4/5

The core single-position workflows are covered: ISO/AMT optimization, NSO exercise, RSU vest decisions, lot selection, hedging, QSBS qualification, concentration, and goal-based funding. Missing pieces are mostly edge-domain items like ESPP, disqualifying dispositions, and integrated multi-position scenarios, which are explicitly noted as out of scope or beta.