opentax

search_tax_rules

Full-text search over the encoded tax-law corpus ('kiddie tax', 'NIIT threshold', 'california renters credit'). Returns matching rules: id, title, statutory citation, effective window, and a verbatim excerpt of the law text. A hit means the engine computes this; zero hits means it is outside the corpus — say so rather than guessing. Follow up with explain_rule for a hit's full formula, or lookup_tax_parameter for its dollar amounts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`asOf`	No
`limit`	No
`query`	Yes	plain-English search, e.g. 'kiddie tax'

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description effectively conveys the read-only search behavior, what a hit means, and the return format. However, it does not mention any rate limits, authentication needs, or performance characteristics, leaving minor gaps in behavioral context.

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?

The description is two succinct sentences followed by a single directive sentence. All information is front-loaded and relevant, with no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: purpose, return fields, interpretation of results, and links to sibling tools. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 33% (only query described). The description adds a plain-English example for the query parameter but does not clarify the purpose or format of asOf and limit. The baseline compensation is minimal, leaving these parameters under-documented.

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 clearly states it performs full-text search over a tax-law corpus, provides example queries, and details the return fields (id, title, citation, window, excerpt). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying follow-up tools like explain_rule.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to interpret zero hits as meaning the query is outside the corpus and not to guess. Also directs to use explain_rule or lookup_tax_parameter for further details, providing clear actionable guidance on when to use which tool.

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

All opentax tools Inspect

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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count5/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?