Skip to main content
Glama

Valuation API

by io.github.johnbehar1500-ux

irr_sensitivity

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compute an IRR sensitivity grid across a range of exit multiples and hold periods for a single lump-sum investment. WHEN TO USE: to stress-test how the annualised return varies with exit multiple and holding period before committing to an investment. Complements calculate_irr. WHEN NOT TO USE: when you need one precise IRR for a known exit value (use calculate_irr), or a full valuation (use calculate_dcf). BEHAVIOUR: pure deterministic calculation — no side effects, no network or storage access; idempotent and non-destructive. NOTE ON GRID GEOMETRY: the byMultiple grid is computed at the SECOND hold period in hold_periods (default 5 years); the byHoldPeriod grid is computed at a 2.5x exit multiple. RETURNS: JSON object { byMultiple: { "2.0x": 14.9, ... } with IRR values as percentage numbers rounded to 1dp, byHoldPeriod: { "5y": 18.4, ... } }. PARAMETERS: initial_investment (number > 0), exit_multiples (optional array of numbers to test, default [1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5]), hold_periods (optional array of positive integers (years) to test, default [3, 5, 7, 10]).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hold_periodsNoHold periods in whole years to test, e.g. [3, 5, 7, 10]. Defaults to [3, 5, 7, 10].
exit_multiplesNoExit multiples to test, e.g. [2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0]. Defaults to [1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5].
initial_investmentYesAmount invested up front, in currency units, e.g. 100000. Must be positive.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that it is a 'pure deterministic calculation' with 'no network or storage access,' and details the grid geometry anchors (second hold period, 2.5x exit multiple) and rounding to 1dp. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent needs to interpret results correctly, and nothing contradicts the 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 organized into labelled sections (WHEN TO USE, BEHAVIOUR, RETURNS, PARAMETERS) and leads with a clear first sentence. It is longer than minimal, and the PARAMETERS section redundantly repeats schema info, but every section adds operational context such as return shape and grid anchors.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully specifies the return JSON object with examples and rounding behavior, and explains defaults and grid anchors. All input semantics and safety traits are covered either by the description or the schema/annotations, so an agent has what it needs to call the tool correctly.

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% so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by explaining how parameters interact via the grid-geometry note and by summarizing defaults and positivity constraints. It still partially repeats the schema text, so it does not reach the top of the scale.

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 first sentence states a specific verb, resource, and scope: 'Compute an IRR sensitivity grid across a range of exit multiples and hold periods for a single lump-sum investment.' It also differentiates from siblings by naming calculate_irr as the single-point alternative and calculate_dcf as the valuation alternative.

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?

The description includes explicit WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE sections, naming calculate_irr and calculate_dcf as alternatives and the conditions that select them. This leaves no ambiguity about when to invoke the tool.

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