Calcula la cuota mensual de la Seguridad Social de un autónomo (RETA) según el sistema de cotización por rendimientos reales (2025/2026), incluyendo la tarifa plana de nuevos autónomos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| es_nuevo_autonomo | No | Si está en los primeros 12 meses (tarifa plana). Por defecto false. | |
| rendimiento_neto_mensual | Yes | Rendimiento neto mensual (ingresos - gastos, antes de cuota) en euros |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, indicating no side effects. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the contribution system and inclusion of the flat rate, which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, no extraneous words. Efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, calculation only), the description adequately covers purpose, system, and special case. No output schema needed as return is likely a simple number.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions for both parameters are already clear (net monthly income and flat rate flag). The description reiterates the context without adding new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool calculates the monthly Social Security contribution for self-employed workers under the real income system (RETA), including the flat rate for new self-employed. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the exact contribution type and the specific regulation (2025/2026).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for calculating the monthly quote, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'consulta_autonomo' or 'calcular_gastos_deducibles_autonomo.' No when-not-to-use or alternative names are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
There are many tools with overlapping domains (e.g., multiple retirement calculators, home buying calculators), but detailed descriptions and explicit guidance on when to use comprehensive vs. specific tools help clarify. However, the sheer number (49) still creates potential confusion for an agent.
All tools follow a consistent convention: infinitive verb or noun prefix (calcular, comparar, consulta) followed by descriptive noun phrase in snake_case. No mixed styles or irregularities.
49 tools is high but justifiable given the broad scope of Spanish financial/legal calculations. It leans toward the heavy side but remains within a manageable range for a comprehensive server.
The tool set covers a wide spectrum of personal finance: income, taxes, housing, inheritance, self-employment, investments, etc. Only minor gaps exist (e.g., no separate tool for rental income beyond the alquiler tools, but included in IRPF).
