Skip to main content
Glama

Arc & Ledger Tax Tools

by io.github.Bgenc48

Compare US formation states

compare_formation_states
Read-only

Use this when someone (often a non-US founder) asks which US state to form their LLC or company in - Wyoming, New Mexico, Delaware, or California. Compares government fees, annual cost, franchise tax, privacy, and approval time, and recommends a state based on their situation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
priorityNoWhat matters most: lowest_cost, most_privacy, or investor_ready. Defaults to lowest_cost.
operates_in_californiaNoWhether you (or the business) physically operate in, or are a resident of, California. If true, California registration is generally required regardless of where you form.
raising_venture_capitalNoWhether you plan to raise venture capital or convert to a C-corp. If true, Delaware is usually preferred by investors.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
relayYesInstruction to the calling assistant: relay figures and dates verbatim (identical on every response).
next_stepYesA single review link appropriate to this server surface.
disclaimerYesGeneral-information disclaimer (identical on every response).
source_urlYesThe arcandledger.com page that backs this answer.
server_versionNoServer release that produced this response (matches GET /version).

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's claim of comparing and recommending is consistent and adds context (states and factors) but not further behavioral details beyond the annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two sentences, no wasted words. Efficiently conveys when to use, what it compares, and what it outputs. Could be slightly more structured but remains highly concise.

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?

Given the tool has no required parameters and an output schema (implied), the description covers the essential context: target user, states compared, comparison factors, and recommendation output. It sufficiently prepares an agent for correct usage.

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 has 100% description coverage; each parameter's schema description is detailed. The tool description adds high-level context but does not provide additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema offers.

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?

Description clearly states the tool compares US states for LLC/company formation, lists specific states (Wyoming, New Mexico, Delaware, California), and mentions factors compared (fees, cost, tax, privacy, approval time). It distinguishes from sibling compare_llc_scorp which compares entity types.

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?

Description explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'when someone asks which US state to form their LLC or company in'. While it doesn't mention when not to use or list alternatives, the context and sibling tool names provide enough differentiation.

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

All Arc & Ledger Tax Tools toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes (e.g., FBAR/FATCA, penalty estimation, consultation booking), though check_resolution_options and estimate_irs_penalty both deal with IRS debts but address different aspects (settlement paths vs. penalty calculation). Overall, boundaries are clear due to detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., book_consultation, check_fbar_fatca, estimate_reasonable_comp). No mixing of styles or vague verbs.

Tool Count4/5

18 tools is slightly on the high side but justified for a comprehensive tax tool covering common scenarios (penalties, estimates, notices, formations). Each tool serves a specific need without redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The set covers major tax areas (foreign reporting, penalties, estimated taxes, entity formation, IRS notices). Minor gaps exist, such as state income tax and retirement contributions, but the core domain for small business owners and non-residents is well covered.

Resources