VeteranHQ

Calculate combined VA rating

calculate_combined_rating

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when a veteran has two or more VA disability rating percentages and wants the combined rating. Applies the 38 CFR 4.25 Combined Ratings Table procedure: pairwise combination in severity order, whole-percent rounding after each step, then conversion to the nearest 10. Returns the combined percentage before and after that conversion, plus the arithmetic for each step. The result differs from adding the percentages and from a simple product. It reports what 38 CFR 4.25 yields for the percentages supplied, not what VA has assigned, and it does not evaluate special monthly compensation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ratings`	Yes	Array of individual disability rating percentages (0–100), e.g., [70, 50].

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Despite readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, description explains the algorithmic steps (pairwise combination, rounding, conversion), return format (percentage before/after conversion plus arithmetic), and limitations (does not reflect VA assignment or SMC). This adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Description is appropriately sized, each sentence adds value, and it is logically structured: usage condition, method, outputs, limitations. It is front-loaded with the key use case and efficiently conveys all necessary information without redundancy.

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 (multi-step calculation with rounding and conversion) and lack of output schema, the description fully addresses return values, distinguishes from common misconceptions, and notes scope exclusions. It is complete for an agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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 covers the single parameter fully with description ('Array of individual disability rating percentages (0–100)'). The tool description reinforces the requirement for two or more ratings but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema, warranting baseline score of 3.

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 the tool calculates combined VA ratings using the 38 CFR 4.25 procedure, specifying inputs, method, and output. It is distinct from sibling tools like calculate_rolling_window or compute_retroactive_pay, which address different calculations.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when a veteran has two or more VA disability rating percentages'), what it does not do (evaluate special monthly compensation), and clarifies the result differs from simple addition or product. This provides clear usage context without ambiguity.

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

All VeteranHQ tools Inspect

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

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct VA disability operation — analyzing rating gaps, combining ratings, calculating rolling windows, checking presumptive eligibility, comparing criteria, computing retroactive pay, finding secondary conditions, looking up rates, preparing for exams, and searching legal authority. No two tools overlap in purpose; the 'calculate_*' trio is differentiated by input (percentages vs. episodes) and domain (combined rating vs. disc syndrome).

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern: analyze_, calculate_, check_, compare_, compute_, find_, lookup_, prepare_, search_. The verbs are semantically appropriate ('calculate' for numeric computation, 'check' for eligibility, 'lookup' for rate tables), and there are no mixed conventions or vague verbs like 'run' or 'do'.

Tool Count4/5

The server advertises 10 tools, but only 9 are listed. 9 tools is a well-scoped count for a VA disability rating assistant—each covers a distinct workflow step. The discrepancy may indicate a missing tool description in the input, so I deduct slightly for the listing mismatch, but the count itself is appropriate.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers rating analysis (gap, combined, rolling window), eligibility (presumptive), criteria search, pay estimation, secondary conditions, rate lookup, exam prep, and legal research. Notable gaps: no tool for filing a claim or appeal, no direct 'get rating schedule' without a specific diagnostic code, and no tool for calculating effective dates or handling denials. However, the core rating and compensation lifecycle is well covered.

Resources

Need Help?