Skip to main content
Glama

Tools Berry Paycheck

by com.tools-berry
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Bonus / supplemental withholding

compute_bonus_withholding

What is actually withheld from a bonus in 2026: the federal flat 22% supplemental rate (37% above $1,000,000 of supplemental wages), the state supplemental treatment (flat rate, aggregate/regular method, or none), and FICA.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stateYesUS state or DC: full name ("Ohio"), two-letter code ("OH"), or slug ("ohio", "district-of-columbia").
salaryNoOptional regular annual salary — improves FICA and aggregate-method accuracy
bonusAmountYesGross bonus in US dollars
filingStatusNoFiling status. Defaults to "single". "single" also covers married-filing-separately.
earlierBonusesNoOptional bonuses already paid earlier this year, in US dollars. They count toward the federal $1,000,000 (37%) threshold and state tests such as Massachusetts' 9% rate

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / earlierBonuses
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional bonuses already paid earlier this year, in US dollars. They count toward the federal $1,000,000 (37%) threshold and state tests such as Massachusetts' 9% rate",
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "number"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral details: the flat 22% federal rate, the 37% rate above $1,000,000, and that state treatment can be flat, aggregate/regular, or none. However, it doesn't explain how the calculation handles edge cases, what assumptions are made (e.g., default filing status), or what the result looks like. It adds useful rate context but leaves computational behavior partially opaque.

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?

The description is a single efficient sentence that front-loads the main purpose and lists the key components. It is not padded, though the parenthetical about the 37% threshold could be seen as slightly dense. Overall, it is appropriately sized.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description should ideally say what the result contains (e.g., breakdown of federal, state, and FICA amounts). It mentions the components but not the output format. With 5 parameters and no annotations, more behavioral context could be provided, but it is adequate for a calculator tool. The description covers the core scope but misses details on return values and computational assumptions.

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 documents all parameters, including formats, defaults, and the effect of earlierBonuses on the $1M threshold. The description doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 computational purpose: what is withheld from a bonus, broken down into federal supplemental rate, state supplemental treatment, and FICA. This is clear and distinctive. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like compute_take_home, but the scope (bonus withholding) is specific enough to distinguish the intent.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor are alternatives named. The agent must infer that this is for bonus withholding calculations, but the description doesn't say when to prefer this over compute_take_home or how it relates to compare_states. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

All Tools Berry Paycheck toolsInspect
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