Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Alberta Tax Agent

Alberta Tax Agent

by chiKeka
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Holding Company Structure Analysis

holding_company_analysis

Assess if a holding company structure benefits your business by analyzing creditor protection, tax-deferred surplus extraction, passive income management, and estate planning.

Instructions

Analyze whether a holding company (Holdco) structure would benefit your business. Covers creditor protection, tax-deferred surplus extraction, passive income management, and estate planning.

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": {
      "annual_active_income": "<annual_active_income>",
      "annual_surplus_retained": "<annual_surplus_retained>"
    },
    "name": "holding_company_analysis"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
planning_for_saleNoAre you planning to sell the business in the future?
annual_active_incomeYesAnnual active business income ($)
annual_surplus_retainedYesAnnual surplus cash retained in the operating company ($)
has_high_liability_riskNoIs the business in a high-liability industry?
passive_investment_incomeNoCurrent annual passive investment income in Opco ($)
num_family_members_for_lcgeNoNumber of family members who could claim LCGE on a sale

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Analyze' clearly implies a read-only, non-destructive computation, and the coverage list outlines the scope of the analysis. However, it does not disclose what the output will be (e.g., a recommendation, report, or score), nor any limitations or assumptions, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a compact list of coverage areas. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives the core purpose but omits what the user will receive (e.g., an analysis report, a recommendation, or a yes/no outcome) and any prerequisites. It is adequate for a simple analysis tool but lacks the behavioral and output context needed for full completeness given the parameter richness and lack of structured output documentation.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptive parameter definitions, so the baseline is 3. The description's coverage areas (creditor protection, surplus extraction, etc.) loosely map to parameters but do not add syntax-level or format-level meaning beyond the schema. It offers thematic context but no significant additional semantic value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Analyze whether... would benefit') with a clear resource ('holding company (Holdco) structure'). It lists distinct coverage areas (creditor protection, tax-deferred surplus extraction, passive income management, estate planning), which differentiates it from related sibling tools like estate_freeze_planner or entity_type_comparison.

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 when considering a Holdco structure and mentions relevant areas (creditor protection, tax deferral, passive income, estate planning), but it provides no explicit 'use this when' or alternative guidance. There is no exclusion or differentiation from sibling tools, so it stops at implied usage rather than clear direction.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools