Skip to main content
Glama

contract-compass

by app.sallim

지체상금 산정

estimate_delay_penalty
Read-onlyIdempotent

지체상금(국가·공기업)·지연배상금(지방) 산정 — 법정 요율·기준금액·30% 한도를 결정론 적용.

**국가와 지방은 요율이 다르다**(물품 0.75/1000 ↔ 0.8/1000, 용역 1.25/1000 ↔ 1.3/1000)
— org_type을 반드시 사용자에게 확인해서 넣어라. 법정 용어도 다르다(국가=지체상금,
지방=지연배상금).

**이 도구는 지체일수를 정하지 않는다.** 준공검사 소요기간·검사 불합격 재검사 기간·
발주기관 귀책 일수 같은 것은 사실 판단이다 — delay_days/excluded_days는 사용자가
선언한 값으로 계산에 그대로 쓰이고, 응답의 counted_days.disclaimer가 이 사실을 밝힌다.
면책 사유 해당 여부가 쟁점이면 search_references로 예규·감사원 실무가이드를 찾아라.

응답 필드:
  term/counterpart_term  기관유형에 따른 법정 용어(+반대편 용어)
  rate                   적용 요율·근거 조문(호까지). inferred=true면 법문이 아니라 우리 해석
  base_amount            계약금액 − 인수분 산출 내역
  counted_days           선언 지체일수 − 선언 면책일수
  amount_raw / cap / amount   한도 적용 전 금액 / 30% 한도 / 최종(한도 적용 후)
  warnings               미선언 항목·한도 적용·용어 비대칭 등 실토
  legal_basis            근거 조문 — get_law_article로 원문 확인 가능

Args:
    contract_kind: 요율 호와 1:1. "construction"(공사) | "product_manufacture"(물품
        제조·구매) | "product_repair"(물품 수리·가공·대여) | "service"(용역·기타) |
        "military_food"(군용 음·식료품) | "transport_storage"(운송·보관·양곡가공)
    org_type: "national"(국가기관) | "local"(지자체) | "public_corp"(공기업·준정부).
        **추측 금지** — 요율이 달라 틀린 금액이 된다
    contract_amount: 계약금액(원). **장기계속계약이면 총액이 아니라 연차별 계약금액**
    delay_days: 지체일수(총 지체일수 — 면책일수를 포함해서 넣고, 면책분은 아래에 따로)
    excluded_days: 계약상대자 책임 없는 사유 일수(모르면 0으로 두되 응답 경고를 전달하라)
    accepted_portion_amount: 검사를 거쳐 인수한 기성·기납 부분 금액(원)
    design_build_approved: 설계·제조 일괄 + 발주기관 승인이 필요한 물품인지(요율 예외)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
org_typeYes
delay_daysYes
contract_kindYes
excluded_daysNo
contract_amountYes
design_build_approvedNo
accepted_portion_amountNo

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: it applies legal rates deterministically, does not decide factual delay days, reflects user-declared values, emits a counted_days.disclaimer, and exposes warnings about undeclared inputs. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Although long, the description is tightly structured with clear sections: headline purpose, critical rate differences, non-responsibilities, response fields, and parameter semantics. Every block adds essential information for a complex legal calculation tool, and the most important warnings are bolded and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, 7 parameters, no output schema, and no nested schema information, the description is exceptionally complete. It explains all inputs, key calculation behavior, response fields, legal basis lookup via get_law_article, limitation disclaimers, and when to route to another tool.

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%, but the description fully compensates with detailed Korean-language semantics for every parameter. It explains enum values in context, warns against guessing org_type, clarifies that contract_amount should be the annual amount for long-term contracts, and explains the relationship between delay_days and excluded_days.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: '지체상금(국가·공기업)·지연배상금(지방) 산정' making it clear this tool calculates statutory delay penalties. It further specifies scope by naming the legal rates, base amount, and 30% cap, and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating it does not determine delay days.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: confirm org_type with the user before invoking, use declared delay/excluded day values rather than adjudicating excuses, and use search_references when exemption eligibility is the real issue. It clearly states what this tool does NOT do, which is strong alternative guidance.

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