Xearno Tools

Australia HECS-HELP Repayment & Indexation (2025-26 reform)

australia_hecs_help_repayment

Read-only

Your compulsory HELP repayment under the new marginal system, what indexation adds each 1 June, and how the 20% cut and old rules compare. Computes your compulsory HECS-HELP repayment under Australia’s reformed 2025-26 system — a marginal calculation (nil to $67,000, then 15% and 17% slices, then a flat 10% of total income at the top) that replaced the old flat-percentage-of-entire-income scale. Three reforms landed within a year (the marginal flip, indexation recut to the lower of CPI/WPI backdated to 2023, and a one-off 20% balance cut in July 2025), so general AI still computes the old system on the old thresholds. The tool also names the input people get wrong: ATO “repayment income” is not your salary — reportable super contributions and net investment losses are added back.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`balance`	No	HELP debt balance today ($) Your current HELP balance (myGov → ATO → loan accounts). Used for the indexation and payoff-horizon estimates. The default is the national average debt.
`incomeYear`	No	Income year Thresholds are indexed to average weekly earnings each year, so the year changes the answer.	2026-27
`hadDebtJun2025`	No	Did you have a HELP balance on 1 June 2025? Balances as at 1 June 2025 received a one-off 20% cut (passed July 2025), applied automatically before that year’s indexation.	yes
`repaymentIncome`	No	ATO repayment income ($) NOT your salary. ATO “repayment income” = taxable income (excluding assessable FHSS released amounts) + reportable fringe benefits + total net investment loss (including net rental losses) + reportable super contributions + exempt foreign employment income. Salary-sacrificed super and negative-gearing losses are added back — a $95k salary with $10k reportable super contributions is $105k repayment income.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: the tool uses a marginal calculation, handles three reforms (marginal flip, indexation recut, 20% cut), and computes indexation and payoff-horizon estimates. This goes beyond the safety profile provided by annotations.

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 about 5 sentences long, each adding value. It front-loads the core purpose and then elaborates on key concepts. A bit lengthy but not wasteful; could be slightly more concise.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple parameters, three reforms, input nuance), the description provides a comprehensive overview. It explains the new system, the reforms, the key input mistake, and the parameters' roles. No output schema, but explanation of return is not needed for a computation tool.

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 100%. The description adds significant meaning: it explains 'repayment income' in detail (what is added back), clarifies the default balance as national average, and explains the income year enumeration for threshold indexing. This complements the schema effectively.

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 clearly states the tool computes compulsory HECS-HELP repayment under Australia's 2025-26 reformed system, including indexation and comparison with old rules. The verb 'computes' and resource 'HECS-HELP repayment' are specific, and the mention of marginal system distinguishes it from siblings like income_tax or other financial calculators.

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 description notes that 'general AI still computes the old system on the old thresholds', implying use this tool for the new system. It also warns about a common input mistake ('repayment income is not your salary'). However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool names.

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

All Xearno Tools tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

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

Need Help?