Skip to main content
Glama

Microburbs Australian Property Data

Postcode · Welfare payment recipients

postcodes_economy_welfare_payments
Read-onlyIdempotent

Number of people receiving each government income-support payment (Age Pension, disability, JobSeeker, youth, parenting, carer, family tax benefit, rent assistance and concession cards) by council area and postcode, per quarter for the last three years.

Coverage: 543 council areas and about 2,630 postcodes across Australia; quarters from July 2023 (September 2023 quarter-end) to April 2026 (June 2026 quarter-end). Period is the first day of the quarter. Current to 2026-06-30. Full description, field list and method: /v1/datasets/welfare-payments.

Price: 5¢ per call.

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": {
      "postcode": "<postcode>"
    },
    "name": "postcodes_economy_welfare_payments"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoLast period to include, same formats as `from`.
fromNoFirst period to include: 2020, 2020-Q3, 2020-07 or 2020-07-01.
fieldsNoComma-separated subset of: age_pension, disability_support_pension, jobseeker_payment, youth_allowance, youth_allowance_student_and_apprentice, youth_allowance_other, parenting_payment_single, parenting_payment_partnered, carer_payment, carer_allowance, carer_allowance_child_health_care_card_only, family_tax_benefit_a, family_tax_benefit_b, commonwealth_rent_assistance, austudy, abstudy_living_allowance, abstudy_non_living_allowance, special_benefit, pension_concession_card, commonwealth_seniors_health_card, health_care_card, low_income_card. Omit for all.
postcodeYesFour-digit postcode, e.g. `2026`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: a per-call price of 5¢ (cost matters for a paid API), the exact data currency cutoff (2026-06-30), and the period convention that a period label is the first day of the quarter. It does not describe response shape or pagination, but the field-list documentation link partly compensates.

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?

Front-loaded with the measure and dimensions, then coverage, then period semantics, then documentation pointer and price — a sensible information hierarchy with no filler sentences. Slightly long, and the parenthetical payment enumeration largely duplicates the `fields` schema, but nothing is actively wasteful.

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?

For a read-only query tool with four fully documented parameters, the definition supplies what the schema and annotations cannot: data coverage, temporal boundaries, period labeling convention, cost, and a pointer to the full field list and method. Absent an output schema, it doesn't describe the returned record structure, but the documented reference covers it adequately.

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 `from`, `to`, `fields` and `postcode` are already documented, including accepted date formats and the full field enumeration. The description only echoes the payment-type list that `fields` enumerates, adding no syntax, defaults or edge cases beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate where the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a concrete measure (count of people receiving each income-support payment), the breakdown (payment type), the geographies (council area and postcode) and the cadence (quarterly, last three years). An agent can tell this is the postcode-level welfare dataset. The only blemish is the phrase 'by council area and postcode', which blurs the boundary with the council-area sibling lga_economy_welfare_payments rather than stating explicitly that this one is keyed on postcode.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the coverage block (543 council areas, ~2,630 postcodes, July 2023 to June 2026) tells an agent whether the data will answer a given question, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or 'use X instead' routing. The sibling lga_economy_welfare_payments is never mentioned, so the agent must infer the choice from tool names alone.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources