Compute Brazilian thirteenth salary installments, including INSS and IRRF deductions for the second installment, based on gross salary, months worked, and dependents.
Calcula o décimo terceiro salário — 1ª parcela, 2ª parcela com descontos de INSS e IRRF.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| salary | Yes | Salário bruto mensal em R$ | |
| dependents | No | Dependentes para IRRF | |
| months_worked | Yes | Meses trabalhados no ano (1-12) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool calculates both the first installment and the second installment with INSS and IRRF deductions, which is useful. But it omits important behavioral details such as which tax tables are applied, rounding behavior, and what exactly is returned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase—'1ª parcela', '2ª parcela', 'descontos de INSS e IRRF'—adds meaningful information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema or annotations, the description gives a useful but minimal overview. It implies the two installment values are returned and that taxes are deducted, but it does not state assumptions about tax year, rounding, or how dependents affect the IRRF calculation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning; it only references the overall salary calculation, while months_worked and dependents remain explained solely by the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'calcula' and names the exact resource ('décimo terceiro salário'), including the two installment types. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate_vacation_pay or calculate_severance, and leaves little ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The use case is implied clearly: it is for Brazilian 13th salary calculations. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusionary statements such as 'use calculate_net_salary for regular monthly salary.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.