The Comp Desk Builder

NY Section 32 settlement split

calculate_section_32_split

Read-onlyIdempotent

How a Section 32 settlement divides: any Medicare set-aside comes off first, the attorney fee is 15% of the rest rounded down to $5, and the remainder is the claimant's net. Optional prior-counsel fee split (the OC-400.1 requests only the current attorney's share). The fee the Judge approves can differ. 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": {
      "settlement_amount": "<settlement_amount>"
    },
    "name": "calculate_section_32_split"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`msa_amount`	No	Optional: the Medicare set-aside, in dollars.
`settlement_amount`	Yes	The gross settlement, in dollars.
`prior_counsel_fees`	No	Optional. Dollar amount of the fee apportioned to each prior counsel (one or two). The current attorney gets the rest of the fee.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, yet the description adds substantial behavior: it 'never estimates', returns status "missing" with the full list of needed inputs and calculates nothing, requires a builder key, and returns figures plus rate year, cited formulas with attorney-review flags, and a not-legal-advice notice. It also warns that the Judge-approved fee can differ from the computed one. That is exactly the kind of 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 formula is front-loaded and the error/return behavior follows logically. But the engine provenance is stated twice — 'The Comp Desk calc-core (the engine behind the app, the website calculators and the Pro Workspace)' and later 'Same engine the Pro Workspace tiles call through CD.Calc, so a figure here matches the app to the cent' — which is promotional repetition that does not help an agent decide or invoke.

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?

For a three-parameter calculation tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: the algorithm, the rounding rule, jurisdiction, auth requirement, missing-input behavior, and the shape of the response including citations and disclaimers. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 would be 3; the description earns above that by explaining the ordering semantics — the MSA is deducted first, the fee is 15% of the remainder rounded down to $5, and prior_counsel_fees are apportioned with the current attorney receiving the rest. It adds real meaning about how the inputs interact, not just what they are.

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 states a specific verb and resource — how a NY Section 32 settlement divides — and spells out the computation order (MSA first, 15% fee rounded down to $5, remainder to claimant). That is far more concrete than the title alone. It does not, however, contrast itself with nearby siblings such as calculate_fee_split or calculate_apportionment, so an agent must infer that this is the NY-specific variant.

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?

Scope guidance is present and useful: 'New York State only' and the optional prior-counsel split with the OC-400.1 note. What is missing is explicit routing — no statement of when to pick this versus calculate_fee_split or calculate_apportionment, and no exclusion of non-NY or non-Section-32 scenarios beyond the jurisdiction line.

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?