Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

OrgGen AI

by ai.orggen
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

simulate_exit

Read-only

Simulates an exit (acquisition / IPO) at exitValuation. Applies the liquidation waterfall: preferences (1× or multiplier×), then residual pro rata for the common + participating preferred. For non-participating preferred, the max of (preference, 'convert to common' pro rata) is taken. No schema modification, pure simulation.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
exitDateNoExit date (YYYY-MM-DD). Required to accrue the cumulative dividends of the preferred between its round and the exit; otherwise no dividend is accrued.
exitValuationYesExit value (acquisition / IPO).
expectedProjectIdNoUUID of the project targeted by THIS call. ACTUALLY targets this project instead of the session project. Refused without changing anything if access is not granted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / exitDate / description
      Previous value: -"Date de sortie (YYYY-MM-DD). Requise pour accumuler les dividendes cumulés du preferred entre son round et la sortie ; sinon aucun dividende n'est accru."New value: +"Exit date (YYYY-MM-DD). Required to accrue the cumulative dividends of the preferred between its round and the exit; otherwise no dividend is accrued."
    • changedInput schema / properties / exitValuation / description
      Previous value: -"Valeur de sortie (acquisition / IPO)."New value: +"Exit value (acquisition / IPO)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / expectedProjectId / description
      Previous value: -"UUID du projet visé par CET appel. Cible RÉELLEMENT ce projet au lieu du projet de session. Refusé sans rien modifier si l'accès n'est pas accordé."New value: +"UUID of the project targeted by THIS call. ACTUALLY targets this project instead of the session project. Refused without changing anything if access is not granted."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'No schema modification, pure simulation', which is meaningful added context about the absence of side effects. It also discloses the actual waterfall semantics (preference stacking, participation, convert-to-common max) that no annotation or schema conveys. It stops short of describing permissions or result shape.

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?

Four tight sentences with the core action front-loaded before the mechanics. The waterfall explanation is dense but each clause carries real semantic weight; nothing is filler.

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?

For a simulation tool with no output schema and high domain complexity, the description covers the computational model well enough to predict behavior. The remaining gap is the return structure (per-holder payouts, proceeds breakdown) and the relationship to simulate_round, which an agent would have to discover elsewhere.

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 coverage is 100%, so exitDate's dividend-accrual behavior and expectedProjectId's targeting/refusal semantics are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes exitValuation as the exit value, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (simulates) and resource (an exit, qualified as acquisition/IPO) and names the driving parameter (exitValuation). It is clearly distinguishable from simulate_round by domain content, though it never explicitly names that sibling.

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 only implied: an agent infers you call this to model exit outcomes. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to the obvious alternative simulate_round, and no stated prerequisites such as having a funded cap table.

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

All OrgGen AI toolsInspect
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