Skip to main content
Glama

Delegum

by com.delegum

calcular_pension_viudedad

Read-only

Estima la pensión de viudedad: base reguladora, porcentaje aplicable (52%, 60% o 70% según cargas familiares e ingresos del beneficiario), pensión mínima garantizada y pensión final con el tope de la Seguridad Social. Distingue si el causante estaba en activo, jubilado o no de alta.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tiene_cargasNo¿El beneficiario tiene cargas familiares (hijos <26 o con discapacidad a cargo)? Puede elevar el porcentaje al 70%. Por defecto false.
pension_causanteNoPensión de jubilación mensual del causante (€). Obligatoria si el causante estaba "jubilado".
edad_beneficiarioYesEdad del beneficiario (viudo/a) en años
situacion_causanteYes"activo" = de alta en SS al fallecer · "jubilado" = percibía pensión de jubilación · "no-alta" = no estaba de alta
base_cotizacion_mediaNoBase de cotización media mensual del causante en los últimos 2 años (€). Obligatoria si el causante estaba "activo" o "no-alta".
ingresos_mensuales_propiosNoIngresos mensuales propios del beneficiario por trabajo o pensión (€). Determinan el acceso a los porcentajes del 60% y 70%.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint: true (safe read). The description adds valuable behavioral context: it calculates percentages based on family charges and beneficiary income, distinguishes scenarios, and mentions caps. No contradictions. Credit for adding scenario details beyond 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?

Description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads key information: what it estimates, the key factors, and scenario types. No wasted words, though could be slightly more structured for readability. Efficient but not perfectly organized.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema is provided. The description mentions outputs (pensión final, etc.) but does not specify the exact fields or format of the response. For a complex calculation tool, this leaves the agent uncertain about what data will be returned. Incomplete for an agent to reliably parse results.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about how parameters like 'tiene_cargas' and 'ingresos_mensuales_propios' affect the percentage, reinforcing schema descriptions. Does not add new meaning beyond schema, so score stays at 3.

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?

The description clearly states the tool estimates widow's pension, specifying inputs (base reguladora, percentage based on charges and income) and outputs (minimum guaranteed pension, final pension with cap). It also distinguishes scenarios (active, retired, not registered). This is specific and clearly differentiates from sibling tools like calcular_pension_incapacidad.

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?

The description implies the tool is for estimating widow's pension, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., other pension calculators). No when-not or alternative tool mentions. Agent would need to infer from tool name alone.

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

All Delegum 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count3/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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).

Resources