Fact-check a claimed dollar amount about tax law ('the 2026 MFJ standard deduction is $32,200', 'CTC is $2,000 per child') against the corpus. Returns verified / refuted (with the correct value and citation) / unknown. Never states a verdict it cannot ground.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asOf | No | ||
| query | Yes | what the amount is, e.g. 'standard deduction' | |
| filingStatus | No | ||
| claimedAmount | Yes | dollars, e.g. 50000 or "1234.56" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It clearly states return values (verified/refuted with correct value and citation, unknown) and the grounding constraint, providing good transparency.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with verb and resource, then return types and behavioral rule. Efficient and to the point.
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?
Tool has 4 params, no output schema. Description explains purpose, output types, and a behavioral rule. Missing details on optional parameters (asOf, filingStatus) and how they affect results, leaving some gaps.
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?
Schema coverage is 50% (2 of 4 params have descriptions). The description adds no extra meaning to parameters like 'asOf' or 'filingStatus' beyond examples. It does not compensate for missing schema descriptions.
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 the tool fact-checks a claimed dollar amount about tax law, with examples. It distinguishes from sibling 'verify_tax_claim' but not explicitly, and is specific about the resource.
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 implies usage for fact-checking dollar amounts but lacks explicit when-to-use or alternatives. It includes a behavioral rule ('Never states a verdict it cannot ground') but no guidance on when not to use.
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.
