Skip to main content
Glama

Xearno Tools

App Store / Google Play / Steam Developer Take-Home Calculator

app_store_developer_fees
Read-only

What your app or game actually nets after Apple’s, Google’s, or Valve’s cut — including the 30 Jun 2026 Google Play restructure no AI model has memorized. Computes a developer’s real take-home on the App Store, Google Play, or Steam. General AI gets this wrong three ways. First, Google Play restructured its US/UK/EEA fees on 30 June 2026 — a 10%+5% / 25%+5% matrix keyed to when the user installed your app — which post-dates every model’s training data. Second, all three platforms have a “$1M tier” that works completely differently: Apple’s Small Business Program is opt-in with a prior-calendar-year eligibility test and a mid-year cliff; Google’s 15% bracket is automatic and marginal per calendar year; Steam’s tiers are marginal on per-app LIFETIME gross — models conflate the three into “15% under $1M”. Third, Apple’s EU (DMA) and US (external purchase links) fee situations are under active litigation, where a confident stale answer is the worst answer of all. This tool computes the exact net from the current schedules.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
appleSbpNoApple Small Business Program Apple only. Unlike Google’s automatic bracket, SBP is OPT-IN, and eligibility is tested on your PRIOR calendar year’s post-commission proceeds (≤ $1M). Crossing $1M proceeds mid-year flips future sales that year to 30% — a cliff, not a marginal bracket.yes
platformNoPlatform The three stores’ fee structures are not variations on one formula — they are structurally different. This decides everything below.apple
revenueTypeNoRevenue type Apple and Google Play only — ignored for Steam. Apple drops any subscription to 15% after the subscriber’s first paid year; Google prices subscriptions on a separate (flat) schedule from one-time purchases.oneTime
googleCohortNoInstall cohort (US/UK/EEA) Google US/UK/EEA, non-subscription revenue only. New installs pay 10%+5% on the first $1M/yr then 25%+5%; existing installs pay a flat 20%+5%. Real revenue is usually a mix — run both to bracket your blend.newInstalls
googleRegionNoGoogle Play buyer region Google Play only. Google restructured US/UK/EEA fees effective 30 June 2026 — a service fee plus a separate 5% billing fee, keyed to when the user installed your app. Rest-of-world keeps the classic 15%-to-$1M / 30% schedule.row
annualRevenueNoGross revenue ($) Gross annual consumer spend, before the store’s cut. STEAM IS DIFFERENT: enter this app’s LIFETIME gross, not annual — Steam’s tiers are marginal on per-app lifetime revenue, so where you sit depends on everything the app has ever earned.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns (calculator, no writes). Adds beyond: mentions litigation for Apple fees and that stale answers are bad, enhancing trust. No contradiction.

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?

Lengthy but every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with purpose, then explains nuances. Could be slightly more concise, but well-organized.

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?

Thoroughly covers platform differences, restructure details, litigation, and tier misconceptions. No output schema, but the description clearly states what is computed (net take-home). Complete for a complex calculator tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description does not add further parameter-level info, but provides overarching context. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the tool computes net take-home for app stores (Apple, Google, Steam) after platform fees. Distinguishes from sibling financial calculators by specifying the unique domain of app store developer fees.

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?

Provides context on when to use (accurate developer fee calculations) and explicitly warns about common mistakes (post-training restructures, differing tier structures, litigation). Does not explicitly list when not to use, but implied by sibling differentiation.

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.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool targets a distinct niche (e.g., specific country tax rules, loan types, or legal calculations), with detailed descriptions that clarify boundaries. However, the large number of tools (66) could cause some confusion for an agent trying to select the right one for a general query, especially when multiple tools relate to the same country.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a mostly predictable pattern: lowercase words separated by underscores, often starting with a country name (e.g., 'uk_stamp_duty_sdlt') or a topic (e.g., 'compound_growth'). There are minor deviations, such as abbreviations ('npv_irr', 'sip') and varying use of verbs, but overall the naming is clear and consistent.

Tool Count3/5

At 66 tools, the server is unusually large and covers an extensive range of financial and legal calculators. While each tool justifies its existence, the count exceeds the typical well-scoped range (3–15), making the server feel bloated. A more modular design might improve coherence.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide array of domains: personal income taxes, property taxes, loan calculations, investment returns, and specific country regulations. Minor gaps exist (e.g., missing tools for corporate taxes, general retirement planning, or insurance), but the overall coverage is thorough and addresses many niche scenarios that general AI handles poorly.

Resources