Skip to main content
Glama

Delegum

by com.delegum

comparar_modulos_vs_directa

Read-only

Compara de forma orientativa qué régimen de IRPF conviene a un autónomo: Estimación Directa Simplificada (tributa por ingresos reales menos gastos) o Estimación Objetiva por módulos (tributa por parámetros de la actividad: superficie, personal, vehículos…). Devuelve el coste anual total (IRPF + cuota RETA) en cada régimen y cuál sale más barato. ⚠️ Los coeficientes de módulos son DIDÁCTICOS/orientativos, no los importes reales de la Orden HFP anual: sirven para entender la lógica de decisión, no como cálculo definitivo.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mesasNoNº de mesas (bares y restaurantes). Por defecto 0.
actividadYesTipo de actividad (determina la fórmula de módulos)
vehiculosNoNº de vehículos (transporte/taxi). Por defecto 0.
kwh_anualesNoConsumo eléctrico anual en kWh (relevante en hostelería). Por defecto 0.
superficie_m2NoSuperficie del local en m². Por defecto 0.
gastos_anualesYesGastos deducibles anuales (€) — solo cuentan en Estimación Directa
ingresos_anualesYesIngresos anuales de la actividad (€)
cuota_reta_mensualYesCuota mensual de autónomo (RETA) en €
personal_asalariadoNoNº de trabajadores asalariados. Por defecto 0.
personal_no_asalariadoNoNº de personas no asalariadas (titular, familiares colaboradores). Por defecto 0.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that the tool compares regimes and returns costs, which is consistent. The description also warns about the coefficients being orientative, adding context beyond annotations. 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two paragraphs: the first explains purpose and output; the second is a warning. It is front-loaded and concise, with no redundant information. Could be slightly tighter but is well-structured.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a comparison tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the inputs, the output format (cost per regime and cheapest), and includes a warning about coefficient accuracy. This is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function and limitations.

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 groups parameters (e.g., 'superficie, personal, vehículos') but does not add new meaning beyond the schema's individual descriptions. It provides context for how parameters are used in modules calculation, but not significantly more.

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 explicitly states the verb 'comparar' and the resource 'regímenes de IRPF para autónomos' with specific regimes (Estimación Directa Simplificada vs Estimación Objetiva por módulos). It also details the output: annual total cost and which is cheaper. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling calculation tools.

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?

The description indicates the tool is for autonomous workers deciding between the two regimes, and includes a warning that coefficients are didactic. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternative tools, though the context is clear enough.

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