hr_uebergangsbereichNur Deutschland. Übergangsbereich (Midijob, früher Gleitzone) nach § 20 SGB IV an einem Stichtag ab 2015: Unter- und Obergrenze je Monat und Faktor F samt Formel für die beitragspflichtige Einnahme. English: Lower and upper limit of the transition zone and factor F for any date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| datum | No | Stichtag im Format JJJJ-MM-TT. Ohne Angabe gilt der heutige Tag. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / datum / patternRemoved value: -"^\\d{4}-\\d{2}-\\d{2}$"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "properties": {
- "bezeichnung": {
- "description": "Gleitzone oder Übergangsbereich (Text)"
- },
- "datensatz": {
- "description": "Kennung des Datensatzes (Text)"
- },
- "datenstand": {
- "description": "Kennung des Datenstands: Datum und laufende Nummer der letzten Änderung im Änderungsprotokoll (/v1/aenderungen), die diesen Datensatz betrifft. Gleicher Datenstand heißt unveränderter Inhalt, praktisch für Prüfer und zum Vergleich zweier Abfragen (Text)"
- },
- "datum": {
- "description": "Abgefragter Stichtag (Datum)"
- },
- "faktor_f": {
- "description": "Faktor F für das Jahr (Dezimal)"
- },
- "faktor_f_definition": {
- "description": "Wie sich der Faktor F für den Stichtag berechnet: bis 30.09.2022 30 Prozent, bis 2026 28 Prozent, ab 2027 Krankenversicherung plus 15 Prozent, jeweils geteilt durch den Gesamtsozialversicherungsbeitragssatz (Text)"
- },
- "faktor_f_quelle": {
- "description": "Quelle des Faktors F (Objekt oder null)"
- },
- "faktor_f_rechtsgrundlage": {
- "description": "Rechtsgrundlage des Faktors F (Text oder null)"
- },
- "formel": {
- "description": "Die Rechnung in Worten oder als Formel (Objekt oder Text)"
- },
- "gueltig_ab": {
- "description": "Beginn der Gültigkeit des Werts (Datum)"
- },
- "gueltig_bis": {
- "description": "Ende der Gültigkeit, null solange kein Nachfolger feststeht (Datum oder null)"
- },
- "hinweise": {
- "description": "Grenzen der Werte oder der Berechnung, in Sätzen (Liste)"
- },
- "lizenz": {
- "description": "Nutzungsbedingungen der Werte (Text)"
- },
- "obergrenze_monat": {
- "description": "Ende des Übergangsbereichs je Monat (Dezimal)"
- },
- "quelle": {
- "description": "Titel und URL der Primärquelle (Objekt)"
- },
- "rechtsgrundlage": {
- "description": "Gesetz oder Verordnung (Text)"
- },
- "stand": {
- "description": "Tag der letzten Prüfung gegen die Quelle (Datum)"
- },
- "untergrenze_monat": {
- "description": "Beginn des Übergangsbereichs je Monat (Dezimal)"
- },
- "zitat": {
- "description": "Fertiger Satz mit Wert, Gültigkeit, Rechtsgrundlage und Quelle zum Zitieren (Text)"
- }
- },
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the geographic and temporal scope (Germany, from 2015) and the presence of a formula, but no further behavioral details. This is adequate given the annotations.
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?
Two sentences (German and English) with no filler. The key scope ('Nur Deutschland') and legal reference are front-loaded. The English translation adds mild redundancy but aids international agents, keeping the description efficient.
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?
For a read-only, idempotent tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description explains the output content and the constraints. It does not detail the exact output format, but given the simplicity and the annotations, an agent can call it correctly without further 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 schema covers the single datum parameter fully with format and default behavior. The description adds the constraint that the date must be from 2015 onward, which is not in the schema, providing extra semantic meaning beyond the structured data.
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 clearly states what the tool provides: the lower/upper limits of the German transition zone (Midijob) per §20 SGB IV, factor F, and the formula for contribution-based income. It is specific enough to be distinguished from sibling tools like hr_minijob_abgaben or hr_beitragssaetze, though it does not explicitly name them.
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 gives concrete usage conditions: Germany-only and for dates from 2015 onward. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like hr_minijob_abgaben or hr_beitragssaetze, leaving the agent to infer from the name and context.
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.