Geo-Parity

State pension systems: retirement ages, replacement rates, years in retirement, by country

compare_pension_systems

Read-onlyIdempotent

What the state pension system looks like there, from OECD Pensions at a Glance (members and G20 partners, 33 of the 41 spine countries). Give country for one: normal retirement age now and for a 22-year-old entering today, by sex; net and gross replacement rates for a full-career average earner at 50/100/200% of the average wage under mandatory schemes; expected years after leaving work; the share of pensioners below half of median income; the average tax rate on an average pension; the old-age to working-age ratio and public pension spending; plus World Bank life expectancy and the 65+ share for all 41 — and WBL's statutory retirement age beside them, which stands alone for the eight countries OECD does not cover (no replacement rate is ever borrowed). Give countries (two or more) for a side-by-side, or neither for the spine ranked by metric. Projection rows (2060+) are excluded. A country missing a metric lacks the key and is dropped from a ranking, never scored 0. Published rules and modelled figures on the dates shown, for information only — entitlements depend on a person's record and consulates decide; every response says so first.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sort`	No	Ranking direction. Ignored otherwise.	highest
`limit`	No	Return at most this many countries in a ranking.
`metric`	No	Ranking metric when neither `country` nor `countries` is given.	netReplacement100
`country`	No	One ISO alpha-2 code for the full profile (e.g. "DE").
`countries`	No	Comma-separated ISO alpha-2 codes, two or more, for a side-by-side. Ignored when `country` is given.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	No
`rows`	No
`metric`	No
`caveats`	No
`attribution`	No
`replacement`	No
`retirementAge`	No
`statutoryRetirementAge`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 1, 2026
- addedInput schema / examples
```
Added value: +[
+  {
+    "country": "DE"
+  }
+]
```
AddedSep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only annotations, it discloses data provenance (OECD, World Bank, WBL), country coverage, projection exclusion, missing-metric handling, and that every response carries a disclaimer. These are substantial behavioral details an agent would not get from annotations alone.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a dense single paragraph that lists many returned metrics already covered by the output schema, and it opens with an ambiguous "there" before giving the primary country/countries instruction. It is informative but not tightly front-loaded or appropriately trimmed.

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?

Given the complexity, output schema, and annotations, the description covers coverage limits, ranking behavior, missing data, projection exclusions, and the required disclaimer. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 the schema already explains each parameter. The description mostly repeats the country/countries/metric selection logic and adds little parameter-specific meaning for `sort` or `limit`, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the resource as state pension system indicators by country and lists the specific metrics available. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as pension_abroad or retire_on_budget, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives explicit parameter-mode guidance: use `country` for one profile, `countries` for a side-by-side, or neither for a ranking by `metric`. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use this one, so it lacks full alternative routing.

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?