Skip to main content
Glama

contract-compass

by build.naru

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?

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent), and the description adds far more: the tool cannot compute rates and defers with met: null when the rate is absent, the five verdict values with the meaning of single_item_only (only that material adjusts, not the whole contract amount), the 2026-08-29 revision making the two tracks independent so that verdict can be single_item_only below the 3% threshold (answering '조정 불가' would be wrong), and the default-to-item method with disclosure in the response. No contradiction with 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?

Long but dense and well front-loaded: the critical limitation (cannot compute rates) is bolded early, verdict meanings and the two-track revision are bolded, and the Args section is one-line-per-parameter. There is minor repetition — the rate-computation limitation and the 3% threshold appear more than once — but the length is justified by 12 parameters and intricate legal logic.

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?

For a 12-parameter legal decision tool with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description covers the five deterministic criteria, all five verdict values including exception_path (recognition subject is the ordering agency) and undetermined, the single-item two-track edge case, formulas, and default behaviors. Nothing critical for calling it correctly appears missing.

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 burden and succeeds: all 12 parameters get meaning, format, or defaults — org_type enum with a '추측 금지' warning because thresholds differ, YYYY-MM-DD format plus the first-contract rule for long-term contracts, negative rates allowed for adjustment_rate_pct, omission behavior for method_specified_in_contract, and the 30%→0.3 conversion example for advance_payment_ratio.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: '물가변동 계약금액 조정(에스컬레이션) 요건 판정 + 산식 적용 — 이행단계 Phase 3'. The three example questions ('자재값이 올랐는데 계약금액을 올려받을 수 있나', '90일 지났나', '단품 조정 되나') act as concrete routing triggers that separate it from delay/penalty siblings like delay_exemption_guide and estimate_delay_penalty.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use triggers (the '쓰라' example questions) and a hard boundary: the tool cannot compute the adjustment rate, so adjustment_rate_pct must come from the user, otherwise requirement ② is left as met: null and judgment is deferred. It also warns against fabricating missing values. It does not name sibling tools as alternatives for rate computation or legal reference, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: calculation tools (check_price_adjustment, estimate_delay_penalty, decide_contract_method), reference tools (get_law_article, get_case), and search tools. The only potential confusion is between search_law and search_references since both cover statutes, but their descriptions explicitly delineate scope (statutes-only vs. statutes+guidelines+rulings).

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names overwhelmingly follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (check_price_adjustment, estimate_delay_penalty, get_law_article, search_cases). One outlier is delay_exemption_guide, which uses a noun-led pattern rather than a verb-led one, but it is still readable and consistent in style.

Tool Count5/5

Eleven tools is well within the ideal range for a specialized legal advisory server. Each tool covers a distinct function: rule-based determinations, calculations, legal research, historical lookup, case retrieval, and issue reporting. No tool feels redundant or superfluous.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers the core advisory workflow well: searching statutes, guidelines, and cases; retrieving full texts and historical versions; and performing key calculations for price adjustments and delay penalties. Minor gaps exist such as calculators for other contract lifecycle adjustments, but those are reasonably addressable through the search and reference tools.

Resources