TaxCompass — Italian tax tools

compare_italian_regimes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare all Italian regimes side by side at one revenue level.

Runs forfettario (5% & 15%), ordinario, and ordinario + impatriati through
the deterministic engine and returns them sorted by net income (best first),
each with its full breakdown and eligibility.

Args:
    revenue_eur: Gross annual revenue in EUR.
    coefficient: Forfettario coefficiente di redditività (0.40–0.86); omit
        for the professional-services default (0.78).
    cost_ratio: Deductible costs as a fraction of revenue (0–1) for the
        ordinario regimes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cost_ratio`	No
`coefficient`	No
`revenue_eur`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`results`	Yes	One breakdown per regime, best net income first.
`disclaimer`	Yes
`revenue_eur`	Yes	Gross annual revenue (EUR) the regimes were evaluated at.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 19, 2026
- addedOutput schema / $defs / Breakdown / properties / contributions_are_stand_in
```
Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "title": "Contributions Are Stand In",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
Changed3 schema fields changedSep 2, 2026
- addedOutput schema / $defs / Breakdown / properties / effective_rate / anyOf
```
Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
```
- changedOutput schema / $defs / Breakdown / properties / effective_rate / default
```
Previous value: -0New value: +null
```
- removedOutput schema / $defs / Breakdown / properties / effective_rate / type
```
Removed value: -"number"
```
First observedJun 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description discloses that the engine is deterministic, results are sorted by net income best-first, and each regime returns a full breakdown with eligibility. This gives the agent a concrete model of what the tool will do and return.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence captures the core purpose, followed by a short, well-organized Args list. Every sentence adds useful information with no redundancy.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, the regimes involved, parameter semantics, and the output shape (sorted, with breakdowns and eligibility). With an output schema present and rich input documentation, nothing critical is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the Args section fully compensates by explaining each parameter: revenue_eur as gross annual revenue, coefficient with its valid range and default, and cost_ratio as a deductible fraction of revenue. This adds meaning well beyond the raw schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action and scope: compare all Italian regimes side by side at one revenue level, enumerating exactly which regimes are included. This clearly distinguishes it from a single-regime tool like calculate_italian_tax.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The opening sentence establishes the clear use case: side-by-side comparison of all regimes at a given revenue level. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the comparison framing is unambiguous and provides sufficient guidance for an agent.

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

All TaxCompass — Italian tax tools 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.

Resources

Need Help?