Equitest

Record a cap table transaction

record_cap_table_transaction

Records one transaction in a cap table's ledger: issue, transfer, cancel, pool_reserve, pool_release, option_grant, option_exercise, option_cancel, convertible_issue (SAFE or note), convertible_convert, split. Stakeholders, classes and rounds are given by their exact names. The whole ledger is re-checked: a transaction that would leave anyone with a negative balance is refused. Before recording, state what will be recorded and record only what the user asked for; then report the result and any warnings.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "type": "<type>"
    },
    "name": "record_cap_table_transaction"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	No	Stakeholder receiving (issue, transfer, option_grant, convertible_issue, convertible_convert), or the pool (pool_reserve, option_cancel)
`date`	No	YYYY-MM-DD
`from`	No	Stakeholder giving shares/options (transfer, cancel, option_exercise, option_cancel), or the pool (pool_release, option_grant)
`type`	Yes
`class`	No	Share class name (optional when the cap table has one class)
`notes`	No
`round`	No	Optional round name
`amount`	No	Amount invested (convertible_issue)
`strike`	No	Exercise price (option_grant)
`quantity`	No	Number of shares or options
`cap_basis`	No
`cap_table`	No	Cap table: company name (full or partial) or id from list_cap_tables. May be omitted when the user has one cap table.
`instrument`	No
`split_ratio`	No	split: 2 = 2-for-1, 0.1 = 1-for-10
`cliff_months`	No
`discount_pct`	No	e.g. 20 for 20%
`maturity_date`	No	YYYY-MM-DD
`valuation_cap`	No
`vesting_start`	No	YYYY-MM-DD
`convertible_id`	No	convertible_convert: transaction id of the SAFE/note, when the holder has several
`vesting_months`	No
`price_per_share`	No
`interest_rate_pct`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the whole ledger is re-checked and transactions leaving a negative balance are refused, and the result and warnings should be reported. It does not cover permission requirements or duplicate handling, but it meaningfully supplements 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and supported transaction types, then adds validation and reporting guidance. It is efficient overall, though the long transaction-type enumeration and procedural sentence make it slightly dense.

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

Completeness3/5

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

This is a complex, polymorphic tool with 23 parameters and 11 transaction types, and no output schema. The description covers purpose, ledger validation, and reporting warnings, but it does not explain which parameters apply to which transaction type or mention the void alternative. Given the schema's partial descriptions, it is adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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 description coverage is moderate at 61%, so the schema already explains many parameters. The description adds some meaning by saying stakeholders, classes and rounds are given by exact names, but it does not explain how the many conditional parameters map to each transaction type beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Records one transaction in a cap table's ledger,' and enumerates all supported transaction types. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling void_cap_table_transaction tool.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage by listing the transaction types and gives operational guidance to state what will be recorded and record only what the user asked for. However, it does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as void_cap_table_transaction or simulate_funding_round, nor does it state any exclusions.

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

All Equitest tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?