Skip to main content
Glama

Calculate.co.nz NZ Calculators

nz_pro_rata_salary_calculator

Scale a full-time New Zealand salary to part-time hours, gross and net.

Use for: 'what would $90,000 be for 3 days a week', 'pro rata salary for 25
hours', 'I am dropping to four days, what will I earn', 'is part time worth
it after tax'.

THE USEFUL PART IS THE TAKE-HOME, NOT THE GROSS. The gross scales with the
hours; the take-home does not, because dropping hours drops the salary out
of the higher brackets. Someone going from five days to three often keeps
more than 60% of their take-home, and that is what the decision turns on.
Lead with it.

The Independent Earner Tax Credit defaults on, because part-time earnings
are the band where it is worth the most. Turn it off for someone on a main
benefit, Working for Families or NZ Super.

Args:
    full_time_salary: The advertised full-time annual salary.
    full_time_hours: Hours a week full time is based on, usually 40.
    your_hours: Hours a week actually worked.
    kiwisaver_rate: A DECIMAL, 0.035 for 3.5%.
    has_student_loan: Whether repayments are deducted.
    claim_ietc: Whether the Independent Earner Tax Credit applies.

Returns:
    The pro rata salary gross by year, month, fortnight and week, the
    implied hourly rate, and the take-home after tax.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
claim_ietcNo
your_hoursNo
kiwisaver_rateNo
full_time_hoursNo
full_time_salaryYes
has_student_loanNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it steps up meaningfully: it discloses the non-obvious behavior that gross scales linearly while take-home does not, and explains why the Independent Earner Tax Credit defaults on. It also flags the kiwisaver decimal gotcha. The main gaps are the absence of a tax-year basis or estimate caveat and no detail on how the student loan deduction is applied.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then usage examples, then a highlighted behavioral insight, so structure guides the agent well. It is slightly longer than strictly needed — the Returns section partly restates 'gross and net' from the opening line, and the use-case list is a bit redundant — but every section does earn its place for a 6-parameter tool.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 6-param calculator with no output schema and no annotations, the description documents all inputs and the full output shape: gross by year, month, fortnight and week, implied hourly rate, and take-home after tax. The only notable absences are an explicit tax-year basis and an estimate disclaimer, but nothing an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly 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 coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by documenting all six arguments with real semantics. The most valuable entry is 'kiwisaver_rate: A DECIMAL, 0.035 for 3.5%' — exactly the unit trap the schema's plain 'number' type cannot convey. Prose statements such as IETC defaulting on also match the schema defaults, reinforcing correct invocation.

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 opening line states a specific verb and resource: 'Scale a full-time New Zealand salary to part-time hours, gross and net.' The 'Use for' examples with concrete user phrasings like 'what would $90,000 be for 3 days a week' make the tool's job unmistakable. The pro-rata/part-time focus clearly differentiates it from sibling tax and salary calculators such as nz_paye_calculator and nz_net_to_gross_calculator.

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?

Three concrete use-case phrasings tell an agent exactly which user queries should route here, which is strong context. It also gives explicit conditional advice for the IETC parameter: 'Turn it off for someone on a main benefit, Working for Families or NZ Super.' However, it never names sibling alternatives or says when not to use this tool versus a full-time PAYE or net-to-gross calculator, so it stops short of the top tier.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources