Geo-Parity

Employer cost of a hire, by country

estimate_employer_cost

Read-onlyIdempotent

What a hire actually costs the employer: the gross wage plus the employer's own social security contributions at the rate OECD Taxing Wages publishes (single earner, no children, 100% of the average wage), applied as a flat rate — the figure employer-of-record services quote for a fee. Pass gross (annual USD) for your own figure; without it the wage is the pay-range midpoint for the occupation and seniority, and basis says whether that wage is measured (ILOSTAT) or modelled. Employee-side rates and OECD's tax wedge are returned for context and never applied. Without country, ranks the spine by employer contribution rate. Coverage is the 25 spine countries OECD measures; the other sixteen return NO_DATA, never a 0% rate (New Zealand's 0% is real: it has no employer contributions). Every response carries caveats — contribution ceilings, excluded schemes — and it is not payroll or legal advice.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sort`	No	Ranking direction. Ignored when `country` is given.	highest
`gross`	No	Gross annual wage in USD. When omitted, the pay-range midpoint is used.
`limit`	No	Return at most this many countries in a ranking.
`country`	No	ISO alpha-2 code (e.g. "DE"). Omit for a ranking.
`seniority`	No	Seniority for the default wage (default `mid`). Ignored when `gross` is given.
`occupation`	No	ISCO-08 major group id for the default wage (default `total`). Ignored when `gross` is given.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	No
`oecd`	No
`rows`	No
`wage`	No
`caveats`	No
`country`	No
`employee`	No
`employer`	No
`taxWedge`	No
`attribution`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 1, 2026

addedInput schema / examples

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "country": "DE",
+    "gross": 60000
+  }
+]

AddedSep 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: flat-rate application, basis measured vs modelled, employee-side rates returned but never applied, NO_DATA instead of 0% for uncovered countries, New Zealand's real 0%, caveats about ceilings/excluded schemes, and a not-payroll/legal-advice disclaimer. This is rich, non-contradictory disclosure.

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?

Dense but front-loaded single paragraph; every sentence carries operational information (formula, defaults, coverage, caveats) with no filler. It could be split for readability but nothing is padding.

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 6 optional parameters, output schema, and rich annotations, the description completes the picture: it explains the default wage logic, ranking behavior, coverage limits, NO_DATA semantics, and the contextual figures returned. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret the tool is missing.

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 defines all six parameters including defaults and enum values. The description largely restates defaults (gross optional, midpoint fallback) and mentions `basis` (an output field) rather than adding new syntax or constraints, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (employer cost of a hire) and the exact formula (gross wage plus employer social security at the OECD rate), and distinguishes the figure from employee-side rates and tax wedge. However, it does not name or route against any sibling tool such as compare_total_cost, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Provides clear context (employer-of-record fee quoting) and parameter-conditioned behavior: pass gross for your own figure, omit country to rank, omit gross to use the pay-range midpoint. But it never states when to prefer this tool over a sibling like compare_tax_burden or employment_rules, nor any when-not condition beyond coverage limits.

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?