Compute the attachable portion of monthly net income under German §850c ZPO (Pfändung / wage garnishment), using the current official Pfändungsfreigrenzenbekanntmachung. Returns attachable amount, remaining amount, exempt base and the P-Konto base. Informational, not legal advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dependents | No | Number of maintenance-dependent persons (0-5) | |
| net_income_eur | Yes | Monthly NET income in EUR |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it uses the 'current official Pfändungsfreigrenzenbekanntmachung' and adds an 'Informational, not legal advice' disclaimer. However, it does not mention edge-case behavior, rounding, or validation beyond what the schema already indicates.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, immediately specifies the action, legal basis, and return values. Every clause contributes meaning, with no superfluous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although there is no output schema, the description explicitly enumerates the return values, which is essential. Given the tool's simplicity (2 params) and clear scope, the description covers the needed context, legal basis, and caveat. It does not explain how dependents affect the calculation, but the schema description for that parameter already provides that information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters, leaving the schema to fully define their semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Compute' with the resource 'attachable portion of monthly net income under German §850c ZPO' and lists the output values (attachable amount, remaining amount, exempt base, P-Konto base). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools about Hundesteuer and Zweitwohnungsteuer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies when to use the tool (for wage garnishment calculations under German law) and provides enough context to differentiate from the sibling tax tools. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the legal and topical context makes the appropriate use case obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct tax/domain and operation: state-level aggregation, per-city lookup, ranking, and yearly change tracking are clearly separated per tax. The only potential overlap between state averages and city rankings is resolved by explicit descriptions of the state vs. city scope.
The two tax areas follow a perfectly parallel pattern: <tax>_by_state, <tax>_changes, <tax>_lookup, and <tax>_ranking. The utility tools list_datasets and pfaendung_calc also use clear snake_case names and do not disrupt the overall convention.
Ten tools is well-scoped for a server covering two municipal taxes and a garnishment calculator. Each tax has four natural query operations, plus dataset discovery and a separate calculation tool, with no redundant or missing categories.
For a read-only data server, the surface is complete: per-city lookup, ranking, state aggregation, and change tracking exist for both taxes, list_datasets exposes dataset metadata, and pfaendung_calc covers the garnishment computation. There are no obvious dead-end workflows within the stated domain.