Skip to main content
Glama

contract-compass

by app.sallim

물가변동 조정 판정

check_price_adjustment
Read-onlyIdempotent

물가변동 계약금액 조정(에스컬레이션) 요건 판정 + 산식 적용 — 이행단계 Phase 3.

"자재값이 올랐는데 계약금액을 올려받을 수 있나", "90일 지났나", "단품 조정 되나"에 쓰라.

**이 도구는 조정률을 산정하지 못한다.** 품목조정률·지수조정률은 산출내역서와 지수·단가
원천(한국은행 생산자물가지수 등)으로 계산하는 값인데 이 서버는 그 데이터를 갖고 있지
않다 — 그러니 `adjustment_rate_pct`는 **사용자·발주기관이 산정한 값**을 받아 쓰고,
안 주면 요건 ②를 `met: null`로 두고 판정을 보류한다. 없는 값을 지어내지 마라.

판정하는 것(결정론): ①기간 요건(계약체결일 또는 직전 조정기준일부터 90일 이상)
②등락률 3% 문턱 ③**단품 조정 문턱 — 국가·공기업 15%, 지방 10%(2024 개정으로 갈렸다)**
④조정 방식 결정 규칙(계약서에 지수조정률 명시가 없으면 품목조정률)
⑤조정금액 = 물가변동적용대가 × 조정률, 선금 공제 = 위 값 × 선금급률.

응답의 verdict: requirements_met / **single_item_only**(총액 조정은 미충족이나 단품
조정은 충족 — **그 자재에 한하여** 조정된다. 계약금액 전체가 아니다) /
requirements_not_met / exception_path(천재지변·원자재 급등 예외 검토 대상 — 인정
주체는 발주기관) / undetermined(조정률 미제공).

**두 트랙은 독립이다**(2026-08-29 수리). 단품 조정은 영 제64조⑥ "제1항 각 호에도
불구하고"라 3% 문턱과 무관하게 성립하므로, 등락률이 3% 미만이어도 verdict가
single_item_only일 수 있다 — 그때 "조정 불가"라고 답하면 오답이다. 반대로 제5항
예외가 푸는 것은 **조정제한기간(90일)뿐**이고 3% 문턱은 그대로다.

Args:
    org_type: "national"|"local"|"public_corp" — **추측 금지**(단품 문턱이 다르다)
    contract_date: 계약체결일 "YYYY-MM-DD". 장기계속계약은 **제1차계약 체결일**
    check_date: 조정 검토·청구 시점 "YYYY-MM-DD"
    last_adjustment_date: 직전 조정기준일(있으면 기간 기산점이 이쪽으로 바뀐다)
    adjustment_rate_pct: 산정된 품목·지수 조정률(%). 감액도 그대로(음수) 넣어라
    method_specified_in_contract: 계약서에 지수조정률이 명시됐으면 "index", 품목이면
        "item". 모르면 생략 — 기본값(품목조정률)으로 안내하되 그 사실을 응답에 밝힌다
    urgent_exception: 천재지변·원자재 급등으로 90일 이내 조정을 검토하는가
    single_item_rate_pct: 단품 조정 검토 시 해당 자재 가격증감률(%)
    single_item_share_over_5permille: 그 자재가 재료비·노무비·경비 합계액의 1천분의 5를
        초과하는가(산출내역서로 확인 — 우리가 계산하지 못한다)
    is_construction: 공사계약인가(단품 조정은 공사 전용 제도)
    adjustment_base_amount: 물가변동적용대가(원) — 조정기준일 **이후** 이행분의 대가
    advance_payment_ratio: 선금급률(비율, 30%면 0.3)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
org_typeYes
check_dateYes
contract_dateYes
is_constructionNo
urgent_exceptionNo
adjustment_rate_pctNo
last_adjustment_dateNo
single_item_rate_pctNo
advance_payment_ratioNo
adjustment_base_amountNo
method_specified_in_contractNo
single_item_share_over_5permilleNo

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even though annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, the description adds substantial behavioral context: it cannot compute the rate itself, it uses user-supplied `adjustment_rate_pct`, it returns distinct verdicts including `single_item_only`, `exception_path`, and `undetermined`, and it explicitly instructs the agent not to invent missing values. This goes well beyond the structured 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 long, but the tool is genuinely complex with 12 parameters and multiple legal branches. It is well front-loaded: purpose and the central 'cannot compute rate' limitation appear before verdicts and parameters. A few points are restated across the verdict list and the Args section, so it could be slightly tighter.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating all possible verdicts and their precise meanings, including the critical `single_item_only` nuance and the exception-path semantics. It covers the omission behavior, the two independent tracks, and the relationship between the 90-day exception and the 3% threshold, leaving little for an agent to infer incorrectly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full parameter-documentation burden. It explains every parameter's meaning, format, default, and pitfalls, including that `advance_payment_ratio` is a ratio (0.3 for 30%), `adjustment_rate_pct` may be negative for decreases, and `single_item_share_over_5permille` is a check the server cannot itself calculate.

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 names a specific action and object: '물가변동 계약금액 조정(에스컬레이션) 요건 판정 + 산식 적용', and gives concrete sample questions ('자재값이 올랐는데...', '90일 지났나', '단품 조정 되나'). It also clearly states what the tool cannot do (compute the adjustment rate), which distinguishes it from the surrounding legal-search and contract-decision siblings.

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 gives strong when-to-use signals and tells the agent not to fabricate missing rate data, leaving the requirement as 'met: null' instead. It also warns about the single-item track being independent of the 3% threshold. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative for cases where the tool is not appropriate, so it stops just short of a 5.

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

All contract-compass toolsInspect
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

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool has a distinct role: decision-rules, price adjustment, delay penalties, exemption guidance, statute retrieval, case retrieval, and three specialized search tools. search_law, search_references, and search_cases look similar at first glance, but their descriptions clearly separate statutory text, full reference corpus, and caselaw/interpretation. The main ambiguity is between search_law and search_references for mixed practical queries.

Naming Consistency4/5

Almost all tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern: check_price_adjustment, decide_contract_method, estimate_delay_penalty, get_law_article, search_references. delay_exemption_guide is the one name that leads with a noun rather than a verb, and get_law_article_asof adds an as-of suffix that is not mirrored elsewhere, but the overall style remains predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Eleven tools are well-scoped for a Korean public-contract advisory server: three rule calculators, one exemption guide, paired search/retrieval tools, an as-of law lookup, and a feedback/question-log tool. Each tool earns its place, and the count is neither bloated nor too thin.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the main contract lifecycle well: selecting contract method, price escalation, delay penalty calculation, and delay exemption guidance, backed by statutes, references, and caselaw retrieval. Some narrower lifecycle aspects such as termination, sanctions, or post-award administration are only reachable through general search rather than dedicated decision tools, which is a minor gap agents can work around.

Resources