Get a tax rule's statutory citation, verbatim excerpt, validity window, parameters, and dependencies. Use to quote the actual law behind an answer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ruleId | Yes | e.g. "us.federal.standard_deduction" — list via calculate_tax proof or corpus |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fully discloses the return fields (citation, excerpt, validity window, parameters, dependencies), which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. It does not mention prerequisites or side effects, but given the tool's explanatory nature, this is acceptable.
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 extremely concise at two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and outputs, and the second provides the usage context. No extraneous information.
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?
Given the low complexity (1 required parameter, no output schema, no enums, no nesting), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, outputs, and use case. It does not mention error conditions, but that is not necessary for a straightforward explanatory tool.
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?
The schema coverage is 100% with a helpful description for ruleId (example value and source). The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns, which helps the agent understand how the parameter contributes to the output. Since coverage is high, the description meaningfully supplements the schema.
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 what the tool does: 'Get a tax rule's statutory citation, verbatim excerpt, validity window, parameters, and dependencies.' It also specifies the use case: 'Use to quote the actual law behind an answer.' This distinguishes it from siblings like search_tax_rules (finding rules) and calculate_tax (computing taxes).
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 provides a clear context for when to use the tool ('to quote the actual law behind an answer'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with siblings. However, the context is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate usage.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: calculate_tax handles individuals, calculate_business_tax handles entities, calculate_fiduciary_tax handles estates/trusts, compute_return produces the complete federal return, compute_state_return handles state returns, and the remaining tools cover specific lookups (parameters, rules, facts, dependencies, cliffs, tipped occupations) or verification. Even with overlapping domains (explain_rule, lookup_tax_parameter, search_tax_rules, verify_fact, verify_tax_claim), their roles are sharply delineated.
Tool names follow a clear pattern: compute_return, compute_state_return, calculate_tax, calculate_business_tax, calculate_fiduciary_tax, determine_dependent, explain_rule, find_tax_cliffs, is_tipped_occupation, list_input_facts, lookup_tax_parameter, search_tax_rules, verify_fact, verify_tax_claim. Most use verb_noun (calculate_tax, lookup_tax_parameter, search_tax_rules, verify_fact). Minor deviations: compare_filing_statuses and compute_return use adjective/noun phrases rather than verb_noun, but they're still readable and follow the 'compute/calculate' theme.
15 tools is well-scoped for a comprehensive tax computation server. Each tool covers a distinct aspect of tax law (federal individual, business, fiduciary, state returns, dependency, rule lookup, parameter lookup, validation, cliff detection, fact verification, search). No tool feels redundant, and the count supports the ambitious scope without bloating.
The tool surface covers the full tax workflow: input discovery (list_input_facts), computation (calculate_tax, calculate_business_tax, calculate_fiduciary_tax, compute_return, compute_state_return), dependency determination (determine_dependent), rule/parameter lookup (explain_rule, lookup_tax_parameter, search_tax_rules), verification (verify_fact, verify_tax_claim), and specialized analysis (find_tax_cliffs, is_tipped_occupation, compare_filing_statuses). There's no obvious gap; the only potential missing feature is payroll tax computation, but that's outside the stated domain of income tax.
