Geo-Parity

Compare contractor vs employee net take-home

compare_contract

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compute gross-to-net parity between a self-employed contractor hourly rate and an employee (W2/EOR) hourly rate, accounting for self-employment/income tax and self-paid health insurance, and return the break-even contractor rate. Uses transparent effective-rate tax presets per country, all overridable. Estimates only — not tax advice.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hours`	No	Hours per week (default 40).
`ctRate`	No	Override contractor effective tax rate, percent (e.g. 32).
`health`	No	Annual self-paid health insurance (USD); defaults to the country preset.
`country`	No	Country code for tax presets.	US
`empRate`	No	Override employee effective tax rate, percent (e.g. 24).
`taxMode`	No	'brackets' uses progressive 2025 schedules (US and GB only; falls back to flat elsewhere — response echoes the mode).
`expenses`	No	Annual business expenses (USD, default 0).
`employeeRate`	Yes	Employee/W2/EOR hourly rate (USD).
`employeeWeeks`	No	Employee paid weeks (default 52).
`contractorRate`	Yes	Self-employed hourly rate (USD).
`contractorWeeks`	No	Contractor paid/billable weeks (default 48).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	No
`employee`	No
`contractor`	No
`breakevenRate`	No
`netDifference`	No
`contractorProfitable`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 1, 2026

addedInput schema / examples

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "contractorRate": 100,
+    "country": "US",
+    "employeeRate": 70
+  }
+]

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: country tax presets are transparent effective rates and all overridable, and brackets mode falls back to flat outside US/GB. The 'estimates only — not tax advice' caveat is also useful, though response shape is left to the output schema.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences that front-load the calculation, then the methodology and the override/fallback caveat, ending with the disclaimer. No filler.

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?

Given an output schema exists, return values needn't be explained, and the description still names the key output (break-even rate). It covers presets, override behavior, and the brackets fallback. Slightly incomplete on how hours/weeks affect results, but strong overall for an 11-param tool.

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 parameters are already well documented, making 3 the baseline. The description adds the notion that presets are overridable and mentions tax-mode fallback, but does not clarify individual parameter interactions (e.g., weeks/hours effect on the break-even calculation) beyond what the schema states.

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+resource: computes gross-to-net parity between a contractor hourly rate and an employee W2/EOR rate, and returns the break-even contractor rate. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tax tools like compare_effective_tax or compare_tax_burden.

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 conveys the scenario (comparing contractor vs employee take-home) but never explicitly says when to pick this over alternatives such as compare_effective_tax, required_rate, or estimate_employer_cost. Usage is implied by the scenario rather than stated with exclusions.

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

All Geo-Parity 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.

Resources

Need Help?