Discounted-cash-flow intrinsic value per share from growth/discount/terminal assumptions.
Scored across 1 tool
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion between overlapping purposes. The tool's single responsibility is clearly defined as DCF computation, making its purpose unambiguous.
The sole tool follows the conventional verb_noun pattern (compute_dcf), which is consistent and readable. There are no other tools to create inconsistency, so the naming is coherent.
A single tool for a DCF calculator feels thin even if the scope is narrow. The typical range for a well-scoped server is 3-15 tools, so this falls below that and is borderline. However, it does not feel like an extreme mismatch.
The tool covers the full DCF calculation workflow: projecting FCF, discounting, terminal value, and margin-of-safety comparison. Inputs are explicitly passed as judgment calls, and the optional ticker lookups fill the only external data need. There are no obvious gaps for the stated domain.
Compute a simplified discounted-cash-flow intrinsic value per share: project free cash flow per share forward at a constant growth rate, discount back at a discount rate, add a Gordon-growth terminal value. Pass fcf/growth/discount/terminal/years directly (these are judgment calls, not looked up). Optionally pass a ticker to auto-fill the current price for a margin-of-safety comparison.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fcf | Yes | Free cash flow per share | |
| price | No | Current price, used instead of a ticker lookup | |
| years | Yes | Number of projection years, e.g. 10 | |
| growth | Yes | Growth rate for the projection years, in percent, e.g. 8 | |
| ticker | No | Optional ticker, used only to fetch the current price | |
| discount | Yes | Discount rate, in percent, e.g. 10 | |
| terminal | Yes | Terminal growth rate, in percent, e.g. 2.5 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it clarifies that fcf/growth/discount/terminal/years are judgment calls (not looked up) and that passing a ticker triggers a price fetch. This goes beyond the annotations and explains side effects (lookup) without contradiction.
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?
The description is three sentences and front-loads the primary purpose, then explains input passing and the optional ticker. It is efficient with no wasted words, though it is slightly dense. It earns a 4 for structure and conciseness.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (7 params, 5 required) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the inputs and the optional price-lookup behavior. It does not explicitly state the return format, but the purpose implies it returns the intrinsic value per share, and the margin-of-safety mention hints at comparison. This is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.
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% with descriptions for each parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic meaning by explaining that the five core parameters are user-supplied judgment calls and that ticker is used only to fetch the current price. It also implies the relationship between price and ticker (alternatives), which is not explicit in the schema but adds clarity.
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 states a specific action (compute a simplified DCF intrinsic value per share) with precise method (project FCF forward, discount back, add Gordon-growth terminal value). It clearly distinguishes this tool's scope from any generic calculator, and the lack of siblings makes differentiation non-issue.
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 description gives explicit guidance on when to supply the five judgment-call parameters directly and when to optionally pass a ticker to auto-fill the price. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions because there are no sibling tools, but it clearly instructs on parameter usage and the optional price-lookup path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
compute_dcfIntrinsic stock value from SEC filings: DCF, EPV, Graham, moat signals. Deterministic, not guessed.
Indicative US 409A and UK EMI share value estimates from cap table and financial inputs. Read-only.
What a stock price is betting on: implied growth, duration, and margin, read from SEC filings.
13-model stock valuation engine for AI agents - fair values for 5,900+ US stocks, updated daily.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
