Skip to main content
Glama

Valuation API

by io.github.johnbehar1500-ux

calculate_moic

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate the Multiple on Invested Capital (MOIC): total distributions divided by total invested, with no discounting and no time value. WHEN TO USE: for a quick money-multiple answer from a cash-flow schedule when you do not need a discount rate or annualised return. WHEN NOT TO USE: when time value of money matters (use calculate_irr for annualised return, or calculate_npv for discounted value). BEHAVIOUR: pure deterministic calculation — no side effects, no network or storage access; idempotent and non-destructive. MOIC is computed as sum of positive cash flows divided by sum of absolute negative cash flows; returns 0 if there is no invested capital. RETURNS: JSON object { moic: number rounded to 2dp (e.g. 2.5 = 2.5x), cash_flows }. PARAMETERS: cash_flows (ordered number array starting at time 0; negatives are investments, positives are distributions), e.g. [-100000, 0, 0, 0, 0, 250000].

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cash_flowsYesOrdered cash flows starting at time 0. Negative = invested capital, positive = distributions. Example: [-100000, 0, 0, 0, 0, 250000].

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses that the calculation is deterministic, side-effect-free, idempotent, and non-destructive, adding behavioral context beyond the annotations. It also documents the edge case of zero invested capital returning 0 and states the output format with rounding behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear labels for definition, usage, behavior, returns, and parameters. Every section carries distinct value and there is minimal redundancy despite the thorough coverage.

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?

For a single-parameter pure calculation tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: formula, sign conventions, edge case, output shape, rounding, and sibling distinctions. No important calling information is missing.

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?

Although the schema already documents cash_flows well, the description adds formula-level semantics: sum of positive cash flows divided by sum of absolute negative cash flows, explicit sign conventions, and a concrete example. This meaningfully supplements 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 clearly defines MOIC as total distributions divided by total invested, specifies no discounting and no time value, and distinguishes it from related financial metrics. The exact calculation formula makes the tool's 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 Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE sections state that this tool is for quick money-multiple answers without a discount rate, and it names calculate_irr and calculate_npv as alternatives when time value of money matters. This fully guides tool selection.

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

All Valuation API toolsInspect
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

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools map cleanly to distinct valuation concepts (CAPM, WACC, DCF, multiples, NPV/IRR/MOIC, beta adjustment), so an agent can generally select correctly. The main ambiguity is that calculate_irr already includes MOIC and an IRR sensitivity table, making irr_sensitivity and calculate_moic partially overlapping in purpose despite their clarifications.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming pattern is calculate_<metric>, with clear snake_case and a consistent prefix throughout. The one outlier is irr_sensitivity, which drops the calculate_ prefix and breaks the established verb_noun convention.

Tool Count5/5

Twelve tools is a well-scoped size for a valuation calculation API, covering cost of capital, DCF, multiples, and return metrics without bloat. Each tool represents a meaningful standalone calculation an agent would need.

Completeness4/5

The core valuation workflow is well covered: cost of equity, WACC, DCF, enterprise value, multiples, and investment return metrics are all present. The notable gap is the reverse of calculate_enterprise_value—deriving equity value from enterprise value—and there is no standalone terminal value calculator, though both are workable gaps.

Resources