Emergent Technologies

Estimate a data licensing payout

estimate_payout

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns the same indicative payout range the estimator on emergenttechnologies.ai shows for a company's headcount, years of records and headquarters, with the page's own caveats. It is a starting range from licensing partners' published formulas, not an offer. Inputs above the page's caps (1,000 people, 30 years) are shown at the cap, as on the page.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "employees": "<employees>",
      "years": "<years>"
    },
    "name": "estimate_payout"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`years`	Yes	How many years of data the company has (usually years in business)
`employees`	Yes	How many people work at the company
`headquarters`	No	Where the company is headquartered: us (default), canada, europe or other

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`meta`	Yes
`notes`	Yes
`range`	Yes
`capped`	Yes
`display`	Yes
`nextStep`	Yes
`disclaimer`	Yes
`inputsUsed`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: out-of-range inputs are clamped to the page's caps (1,000 people, 30 years) rather than rejected, and the result mirrors the site's own caveats. This clamping rule is important and would otherwise be invisible, since the schema itself permits values far above those caps.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the caveats. Slight redundancy between 'as on the page' and 'the page's own caveats', but no sentence is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description only needs to carry the caveats and edge-case behavior, which it does. The one gap is that it doesn't clarify the relationship between the schema's wider maximums and the stated 1,000/30-year caps beyond asserting clamping.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains employees, years and the headquarters enum with its 'us' default. The description restates the three inputs and adds the cap behavior, but provides no format or interpretation guidance for headquarters beyond what the schema says. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — returns the indicative payout range the site's estimator shows — and names the three inputs that drive it. An agent can immediately tell this apart from siblings like consulting_offer or ask_emergent without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied rather than stated: it is framed as a 'starting range... not an offer', which tells the agent how to present the result, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives such as consulting_offer or ask_emergent. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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

All Emergent Technologies tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?