Skip to main content
Glama

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?

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: deterministic computation, asymmetric legal terms, 30% cap application, response field semantics, warnings, and the fact that delay_days/excluded_days are taken as user-declared values without validation. Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive; the description enriches trust boundaries.

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?

Long but every sentence earns its place: summary, key distinctions, limitations, response field overview, and detailed args. Front-loaded with the core purpose and key warning about rate differences, making it scannable for an agent.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description lists all response fields with meanings and caveats. Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and legal complexity, this description fully compensates with no obvious gaps.

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 full parameter burden. It explains every parameter, including that delay_days includes excluded days, excluded_days can default to 0 with a warning, contract_amount must be per-year for long-term contracts, and org_type must not be guessed.

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 computes delay penalties using statutory rates and a 30% cap, with explicit differentiation between national and local terminology. The verb+resource pairing ('산정') distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_price_adjustment or delay_exemption_guide.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: use for computing delay penalties per legal rates, but not for fact determinations like delay days. It names an alternative (search_references) for exemption disputes and instructs the agent to confirm org_type from the user.

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.

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.