The Comp Desk Builder

NY LWEC / non-schedule PPD award

calculate_lwec_award

Read-onlyIdempotent

A permanent partial disability (non-schedule) award from a loss of wage-earning capacity percentage: the weekly rate (the bounded two-thirds rate × the LWEC %, kept within the max and min), the number of weeks for that LWEC bracket (§15(3)(w): 225 to 525 weeks depending on the bracket), the award, and, with the weeks of temporary benefits already paid, the credit for weeks beyond 130. New York State only. Computes with The Comp Desk calc-core (the engine behind the app, the website calculators and the Pro Workspace); it never estimates. If an input is missing it returns status "missing" with every input still needed and calculates nothing. Returns the figures, the rate year used, the formulas with their citations (each flagged with whether it has been attorney-reviewed), and the not-legal-advice notice. Needs your builder key. Same engine the Pro Workspace tiles call through CD.Calc, so a figure here matches the app to the cent.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "aww": "<aww>",
      "date_of_accident": "<date_of_accident>",
      "lwec_percent": "<lwec_percent>"
    },
    "name": "calculate_lwec_award"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`aww`	Yes	Average weekly wage before the injury, in dollars (gross).
`lwec_percent`	Yes	Loss of wage-earning capacity, 0–100 (50 means 50%).
`date_of_accident`	Yes	Date of accident (injury), YYYY-MM-DD. Only a full date the user gave; never a guessed one.
`prior_temporary_weeks`	No	Optional: weeks of temporary benefits already paid (for the 130-week credit).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses key behavior: it never estimates, returns status "missing" with the full list of still-needed inputs and calculates nothing, returns rate year, formulas with citations each flagged for attorney review, and the not-legal-advice notice, plus it requires a builder key. That is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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 purpose and the missing-input behavior are front-loaded well, but the engine-branding claim is repeated twice ('the engine behind the app, the website calculators and the Pro Workspace' and 'Same engine the Pro Workspace tiles call through CD.Calc, so a figure here matches the app to the cent'), and the dense parenthesis stacking makes it heavier than needed.

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?

With no output schema, the description still specifies the return payload (figures, rate year, cited formulas with review flags, legal notice) and the failure mode, and it covers auth needs. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke this calculator correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the weekly rate is a bounded two-thirds rate times the LWEC percent, held within max and min, and the optional prior_temporary_weeks feeds the credit for weeks beyond 130. The bracket-dependent 225–525 week range clarifies what lwec_percent drives.

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 first sentence names the specific resource (a New York permanent partial disability non-schedule LWEC award), the inputs it derives from, and the exact figures produced (weekly rate, weeks, award, 130-week credit), which clearly separates it from the schedule-loss-of-use and CCP calculators in the sibling list.

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?

Scope constraints are explicit — 'New York State only' and 'non-schedule' — which implicitly routes an agent away from schedule (SLU) or non-NY calculators, and the missing-input behavior tells the agent how incomplete calls will resolve. It never names an alternative tool outright or states when not to call it, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All The Comp Desk Builder 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?