Skip to main content
Glama

extract

by com.mart402

jp_social_insurance

Monthly social insurance premiums from the official Kyokai-Kenpo grade table (FY2026). $0.01/call. Deterministic, cites primary sources; errors and unverified rules are never billed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ageNo
as_ofNo
x_paymentNoOptional: base64 X-PAYMENT header value (x402 exact scheme, USDC on Base mainnet). Omit it to receive the payment requirements (accepts[] + docs) for this call without being charged.
prefectureYes
monthly_remuneration_yenYes

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses deterministic behavior, citation of primary sources, billing rate ($0.01/call), and that errors/unverified rules are never billed—useful behavioral information beyond schema. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

Two succinct sentences front-load the core purpose and add critical billing/reliability details. No wasted words, ideal length.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not describe the return value (premium amount), nor the meaning of age and as_of, nor how the table is applied. Essential for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 20% (only x_payment has a description). The description mentions monthly remuneration and prefecture indirectly via domain context but does not explain age, as_of, or the required parameters' formats. It fails to compensate for low schema coverage.

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 it provides monthly social insurance premiums from the official Kyokai-Kenpo grade table (FY2026), a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like jp_payroll_net or jp_bonus_net.

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 usage for social insurance premium lookups but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. It provides context (official table, FY2026) but no direct guidance on tool selection.

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

All extract 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

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have unclear boundaries: document_pipeline and parse_document both parse PDFs, portrait_analysis and style_profile both perform color analysis, enrich_company and jp_company_profile both resolve company profiles, and jp_payroll_suite bundles capabilities that already exist as separate tools. Descriptions are detailed, but an agent must carefully compare several near-synonyms before selecting.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case, but the conventions are mixed: get_* for metadata, jp_* for Japan-specific calculations, pdf_* for PDF operations, plus standalone nouns like meal_vision and style_profile. The prefixes help readability, but there is no uniform verb_noun pattern and ordering is inconsistent (quote_parse vs parse_document).

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is far above the well-scoped 3-15 range and indicates an aggregator/marketplace rather than a focused server. Even with clear individual descriptions, the sheer breadth across OCR, PDF, Japan tax, style, and marketplace functions makes the tool set feel heavy and harder to navigate.

Completeness4/5

Within its broad marketplace scope, the server is fairly complete: paid products have free samples (get_sample), quotes (quote_parse), receipt retrieval (get_receipt), and discovery via get_catalog and search_x402_services. PDF and Japan tax coverage are extensive, though the wide domain spread means no single area feels fully exhaustive.

Resources