Xearno Tools

UAE End-of-Service Gratuity Calculator

uae_gratuity

Read-only

Your end-of-service gratuity under Decree-Law 33/2021 Art. 51 — basic wage, no resignation penalty — plus the savings-scheme comparison. Computes the end-of-service gratuity (مكافأة نهاية الخدمة) under UAE Decree-Law 33/2021: 21 days of basic wage per year for the first five years of service, 30 days per year after, on the LAST basic wage only, capped at two years' wage — and, in compare mode, the monthly contribution the voluntary savings scheme (Cabinet Resolution 96/2023) would pay instead. General AI reliably gets the UAE wrong in two ways: it cites the ABOLISHED 1980-law rules (limited/unlimited contracts, the 1/3–2/3 resignation penalty, forfeiture on dismissal — all gone since February 2022), and it ports Saudi rules across the border (KSA uses the actual wage including allowances, keeps a resignation ladder, and zeroes the award on an Art. 80 dismissal; the UAE does none of those). Mainland UAE only — DIFC (DEWS) and ADGM have their own regimes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	No	What to compute The savings scheme is an employer opt-in that replaces gratuity accrual with monthly contributions to a licensed, ring-fenced fund. Compare mode shows the monthly contribution at your current service band and how the two regimes differ.	gratuity
`basicMonthly`	No	Last monthly BASIC wage (AED) (AED) UAE gratuity uses the BASIC wage only — housing, transport, and other allowances are excluded. This is the OPPOSITE of Saudi Arabia, where the base is the actual wage including allowances. Check your contract's basic/allowance split; the gratuity rides on the basic line alone.
`serviceYears`	No	Years of service Total continuous service in years — decimals are fine, fractions of a year earn pro-rata. Days of unpaid absence are excluded from the service count. Under one full year of service, no gratuity is due.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations confirm readOnlyHint=true (no side effects). The description adds rich behavioral context: computation uses only basic wage, caps at two years, excludes allowances, and contrasts with Saudi rules. It also explains the voluntary savings scheme. No contradictions with 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 well-structured, starting with a clear summary, then computation details, common pitfalls, and jurisdictional notes. However, it is somewhat verbose and could be more concise while retaining essential information.

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 no output schema, the description explains outputs: gratuity value and compare mode monthly contribution. It covers formula, caps, jurisdiction restrictions, and common errors. For a calculator tool with 3 simple parameters, the description is sufficiently complete to enable correct invocation.

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% with descriptions, but the tool description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema. It explains the legal basis (Art. 51), the cap on gratuity, and provides warnings about basic wage versus Saudi rules. This extra context significantly aids parameter understanding.

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 it computes UAE end-of-service gratuity under Decree-Law 33/2021, with a savings-scheme comparison. It specifies the legal basis, distinguishes from common errors (old law, Saudi rules), and contrasts with sibling tools like saudi_end_of_service and india_gratuity, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states mainland UAE only (not DIFC/ADGM) and warns against using old 1980-law rules or Saudi rules. It also describes when to use compare mode. However, it does not explicitly list alternative tools for other jurisdictions, though sibling tool names imply such tools exist.

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?