Skip to main content
Glama

Xearno Tools

Korea Parental Leave Benefit Calculator (육아휴직급여, 2025 reform + 6+6)

korea_parental_leave_benefit
Read-only

Your monthly 육아휴직급여 under the 2025 reform — 100%/100%/80% with caps ₩2.5M/₩2.0M/₩1.6M, the 6+6 ladder to ₩4.5M, and the 25% withholding that no longer exists. Computes South Korean parental-leave benefit (육아휴직급여) under the rules in force since 1 January 2025: months 1–3 at 100% of ordinary wage capped ₩2,500,000, months 4–6 at 100% capped ₩2,000,000, months 7+ at 80% capped ₩1,600,000 — paid in full every month, because the 25% withheld-until-return (사후지급금) is abolished. When BOTH parents take leave for a child under 18 months, months 1–6 switch to the 6+6 scheme’s escalating 100% caps of ₩2.5M/₩2.5M/₩3.0M/₩3.5M/₩4.0M/₩4.5M per parent (the ladder ends at ₩4.5M — a ₩5.0M figure circulates and is wrong). Single parents get months 1–3 at 100% capped ₩3,000,000. General AI still describes the pre-2025 system (80% flat, ₩1.5M cap, 25% withheld) — all three facts are dead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
monthsNoMonths of leave to model (mo) Standard entitlement is 12 months per parent. It extends to 18 months when both parents each take at least 3 months, for single parents, or for a child with a severe disability.
schemeNoWhich scheme applies? The decisive input nobody volunteers: whether BOTH parents take leave (simultaneously or one after the other) for a child under 18 months. If yes, months 1–6 flip to the 6+6 scheme’s escalating 100% caps — up to ₩4.5M/month per parent instead of ₩2.5M/₩2.0M.general
monthlyWageNoOrdinary monthly wage (통상임금) (₩/mo) Your 통상임금 — the ordinary wage the benefit is computed on (base pay plus fixed regular allowances), not total compensation with variable bonuses and overtime.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description details the calculation logic, caps, abolished withholding, and special rules for single parents and dual leave. No contradictory or missing behavioral traits.

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 detailed but each sentence adds necessary context for a complex benefit. It is front-loaded with the key formula and well-structured. Could be slightly more concise but not wasteful.

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?

Given the tool's three parameters and no output schema, the description covers all schemes, edge cases (single parent, dual leave), and warns of common misconceptions. The only minor gap is the exact return format (single value or per month).

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description. The tool description adds significant value by clarifying the meaning of ordinary wage (통상임금) and explaining the scheme parameter's real-world significance, going beyond the 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 explicitly states it computes South Korean parental-leave benefit under 2025 rules, including specific caps and schemes. It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the specific country and reform, and warns against outdated general AI descriptions.

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 provides clear context for when to use each scheme (general, 6+6, singleParent) and highlights the decisive input for the scheme parameter. It does not explicitly compare to alternative tools but the sibling set makes the domain clear.

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