Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• us_take_home_payA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses coverage (federal, state, FICA, state-specific extras), pre-tax deductions, per-paycheck breakdown, example input, tax year, and a disclaimer about estimates. It does not mention if the tool is read-only, but as a calculator this is implicit.

  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 a single paragraph with several sentences, no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary action. Some bullet-point structuring could improve scannability, but it remains concise.

  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?

  The description outlines what the tool computes and includes an example input, but without an output schema, it does not describe the return structure (e.g., named fields, per-paycheck items). For a calculator returning detailed breakdowns, this is a notable gap.

  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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by listing the tax components and mentioning pre-tax deductions, but the parameter descriptions in the schema are already detailed. The extra value is moderate.

  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 specifies a precise verb ('Computes net take-home pay') and resource ('US W-2 employee'), lists covered taxes and deductions, and inherently distinguishes from siblings (self-employment and capital gains taxes).

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

  Usage Guidelines4/5

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

  The description clearly defines the tool's scope (W-2 employees, 2026 tax year) and lists what it includes, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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

• self_employment_taxA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses tax year (2026), source (Tax Foundation & IRS), and adds disclaimer ('estimates, not tax advice'). It also includes example input and explains the tax breakdown, making behavior transparent.

  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?

  Description is a single paragraph that packs dense information (tax breakdown, formula, example, year, source) without being overly verbose. Could potentially be split for readability, but it is concise and front-loaded.

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

  Completeness4/5

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

  Given the complexity (4 parameters, multiple tax calculations, optional state tax), the description covers the main functionality well. No output schema, but it mentions quarterly estimated-payment figure. Disclaimers and example enhance completeness.

  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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., enum descriptions). Schema already explains netProfit, filingStatus, state, otherIncome clearly.

  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?

  Description clearly states it computes Schedule SE self-employment tax (with breakdown), Additional Medicare surtax, federal income tax, optional state tax, and quarterly estimated payments. It distinguishes from sibling tools like us_take_home_pay and capital_gains_tax by specificity.

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

  Usage Guidelines4/5

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

  Description explains the tool computes self-employment taxes and when it's appropriate. It lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to siblings, but the purpose is clear and context signals provide sibling names. The example input helps understand usage.

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

• capital_gains_taxA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates the tool computes estimates and is not tax advice, but does not explicitly state it is read-only or non-destructive. Implicitly, it is a calculator with no side effects.

  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 a single dense sentence that packs all necessary information. While efficient, it could be slightly restructured for readability, but it earns its place without excess.

  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?

  Given the tool's complexity (multiple tax components, optional state tax) and lack of output schema, the description does not specify the output format or breakdown. It covers inputs well but leaves output details unclear.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%, providing baselines of 3. The description adds value by providing an example input and clarifying the 'gain' parameter as gross gain. It also mentions the §121 exclusion, adding context beyond the schema.

  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 the tool computes federal capital gains tax, NIIT, and optional state tax, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (us_take_home_pay, self_employment_tax) by focusing on capital gains specifically.

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

  Usage Guidelines4/5

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

  The description includes an example input and specifies the tax year (2026) and that it provides estimates, not advice. It lacks explicit 'when to use' vs. alternatives, but the tool name and context make it clear for capital gains situations.

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