contract-compass

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 **빼라**(0으로 계산하고 '미선언'
        경고가 붙는다 — 그 경고를 전달하라). 없다고 확인됐으면 0을 명시하라(경고 없음)
    accepted_portion_amount: 검사를 거쳐 인수한 기성·기납 부분 금액(원). 생략=미선언, 0=인수분 없음
    design_build_approved: 설계·제조 일괄 + 발주기관 승인이 필요한 물품인지(요율 예외)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`org_type`	Yes
`delay_days`	Yes
`contract_kind`	Yes
`excluded_days`	No
`contract_amount`	Yes
`design_build_approved`	No
`accepted_portion_amount`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedOct 8, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / accepted_portion_amount / anyOf
```
Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
```
- changedInput schema / properties / accepted_portion_amount / default
```
Previous value: -0New value: +null
```
- removedInput schema / properties / accepted_portion_amount / type
```
Removed value: -"integer"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / excluded_days / anyOf
```
Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
```
- changedInput schema / properties / excluded_days / default
```
Previous value: -0New value: +null
```
- removedInput schema / properties / excluded_days / type
```
Removed value: -"integer"
```
AddedAug 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark it read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real behavior: deterministic application of statutory rates, a hard warning that wrong org_type yields wrong amounts, disclosure that counted_days carries a disclaimer, inferred=true flagging of interpretive (non-statutory) rates, and warnings for undeclared items and cap application. Far beyond annotation-level detail.

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 purpose sentence and organized into scoped, bolded blocks (usage, disclaimer, response fields, args). Every section is substantive, though the org_type rate-difference warning is echoed again in the Args entry, a minor redundancy in an otherwise tight document.

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 a 7-parameter legal calculation with no output schema, the description enumerates every response field (term, rate, base_amount, counted_days, amount_raw/cap/amount, warnings, legal_basis) and points to get_law_article for the source text. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret results is 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 does so: contract_kind maps 1:1 to rate clauses, org_type must not be guessed, contract_amount must be the per-year amount for long-term contracts, delay_days includes excluded days, excluded_days omitted vs explicit 0 produces different warnings, accepted_portion_amount omitted vs 0 differs, and design_build_approved is a rate exception.

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 precise verb (산정/calculate) and resource (지체상금/지연배상금) and immediately distinguishes it from siblings by naming search_references for exemption cases. It also makes the legal-term asymmetry by org_type explicit, so the agent knows exactly what it computes.

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 rations scope: '이 도구는 지체일수를 정하지 않는다' declares fact-finding items out of scope and routes the agent to search_references for 면책 사유 disputes. It also mandates confirming org_type with the user before invoking, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use conditions.

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

All contract-compass tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

지체상금 산정

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

Resources