Compare net income between CLT employment and PJ (Simples Nacional) for the same monthly gross salary, including CLT benefits and PJ costs.
Compara renda líquida CLT vs PJ (Simples Nacional) para o mesmo valor bruto. Inclui benefícios CLT e custos PJ.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gross_value | Yes | Valor bruto mensal em R$ | |
| pj_tax_rate | No | Alíquota Simples Nacional (%, padrão 6%) | |
| pj_accountant | No | Custo mensal do contador em R$ |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose the comparison and the included factors (benefits/costs) and the tax regime (Simples Nacional), but it does not state assumptions such as which benefit values are used or the shape of the result. No contradictions with annotations exist because none are provided.
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?
Two compact sentences deliver the core scope first and the inclusion criteria second, with no filler. It is easy to parse and front-loaded.
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?
The tool is a simple 3-parameter calculator and the schema documents all parameters, but there is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should clarify what the returned comparison contains and key assumptions. The current text is adequate for selection but leaves interpretation of the result partly to inference.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the role of gross_value ('mesmo valor bruto') and hints that tax rate and accountant cost represent PJ costs, but it adds no syntax or calculation detail beyond 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 opens with the specific verb 'Compara' and names the exact resource: net income under CLT vs PJ (Simples Nacional) for the same gross value. This scope clearly separates it from sibling single-route calculators like calculate_net_salary or calculate_mei_tax.
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 intended use is clear: choose this tool when the request is a same-gross comparison of CLT and PJ, and the mention of including CLT benefits and PJ costs sets expectations for the comparison scope. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, so it misses a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.