Calcula el aguinaldo (LFT Art. 87): bruto (proporcional si aplica), parte exenta (30 UMA), parte gravada e ISR estimado. Determinista. Informativo, no asesoria fiscal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dias_aguinaldo | No | Opcional. Dias de aguinaldo (default 15, minimo de ley). | |
| salario_diario | Yes | Salario diario. | |
| dias_trabajados | No | Opcional. Dias trabajados en el anio (default 365). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false) are complemented by description stating 'Determinista' (deterministic) and 'Informativo, no asesoria fiscal' (informational, not tax advice). This adds value beyond annotations without contradiction.
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?
Single sentence in Spanish that is front-loaded with key outputs. It is concise without wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with line breaks.
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?
Given the moderate complexity of a tax calculator and no output schema, the description lists main outputs but omits details like UMA value dependency or rounding behavior. It partially compensates for missing output schema but is not fully complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for all 3 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters.
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 the tool calculates aguinaldo under LFT Art. 87, listing specific outputs (bruto, exenta, gravada, ISR estimado). It is distinct from sibling tools like fiscal_finiquito (severance) and fiscal_isr_retencion (withholding) by focusing on this specific statutory bonus.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. While the description implies it's for aguinaldo calculations, it does not provide usage context, prerequisites, or mention alternatives like fiscal_finiquito for severance calculations.
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 fiscal or labor calculation (aguinaldo, CFDI validation, IMSS, ISR estimation, etc.) with no overlap. The descriptions clearly differentiate their purposes.
All tools follow a consistent 'fiscal_<noun>' pattern, using snake_case and clear, domain-specific nouns (e.g., fiscal_aguinaldo, fiscal_isr_retencion). No deviation.
10 tools cover the essential calculations for Mexican fiscal and payroll management (aguinaldo, finiquito, IMSS, ISR, CFDI, etc.) without being excessive or insufficient.
The set covers major tax and labor calculations but lacks a few common tools like PTU (profit sharing) or IVA (VAT) handling. However, it is fairly comprehensive for its stated scope.