New York State Workers' Compensation Hub

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.

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

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Going well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses that the engine 'never estimates', that missing inputs produce a status of "missing" with no calculation performed, and that returns include the rate year, formulas with citations, attorney-review flags, and a not-legal-advice notice. That is a full behavioral contract for a pure-function calculator.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the calculation rule, which is the right priority, and error/output behavior follows logically. A few phrases are wasted, notably the marketing aside 'the engine behind the app, the website calculators and the Pro Workspace', and the semicolon-chained sentences run long.

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 covers return contents (figures, rate year, cited formulas, review flags, disclaimer) and the failure mode (missing-input status). Combined with the jurisdiction and judge-approval caveats, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 description coverage is already 100%, but the description adds the ordering logic the schema cannot express: the MSA is deducted first, the fee is 15% of the remainder with a $5 floor, and prior-counsel amounts come out of the fee with the current attorney receiving the rest. It does not clarify edge cases like a prior_counsel_fees total exceeding the fee.

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 names the specific resource (a Section 32 settlement split) and lays out the exact division order — MSA off the top, 15% attorney fee rounded down to $5, remainder to the claimant. It is clearly a computation tool, but it never distinguishes itself from near siblings such as calculate_fee_split or calculate_apportionment, so the agent must infer which calculator applies.

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 is bounded with 'New York State only' and the OC-400.1 note tells the agent when a prior-counsel split is relevant, plus a caveat that the Judge-approved fee can differ. There is no explicit routing guidance against alternatives (fee split, apportionment) despite several sibling calculators existing, so selection is only implied.

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

All New York State Workers' Compensation Hub 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.