Skip to main content
Glama

Fair Value Calculator

Fair value verdict

get_stock_verdict
Read-onlyIdempotent

Full Fair Value Calculator verdict for one stock: the fair value per share with its currency (blended from up to 26 valuation models), valuation status, upside band, quality score, evidence level, size class and a link to the full analysis. Free accounts get 3 full verdicts per day (the response says how many are left), Pro accounts 50. When the daily limit is used up the response has status "free_daily_limit_reached" and no valuation. For a signed-in user the stock also has on_watchlist (true or false); add_to_watchlist puts it on the free watchlist that the weekly email follows, if the user wants to keep track of it. Where available the verdict also carries fair_value_range (cautious and optimistic case of the fair value), reasons (the strengths and weak points behind the verdict, each with a tone), ai_conclusion (one sentence on the business quality), in_focus (what currently matters for the company) and main_risk (the biggest risk to the business), with ai_note_date. Fields: valuation_status (undervalued = price at least 10% below fair value, overvalued = price at least 10% above fair value, else near_fair_value; no_valuation = covered, but no fair value is shown right now, note says why), upside_band (distance from price to fair value in 10-point bands, e.g. "10_to_20", "above_30", "below_-30"), quality_score (0-100 business quality), evidence_level (how much audited data backs the value), deep_link (full analysis page on fairvalue-calculator.com with the fair value history chart and the result of each valuation model with its bear, base and bull case). The values are calculated by Fair Value Calculator from its own models and cannot be derived from the other fields; deep_link opens the full analysis page with the fair value history chart and every valuation model. This is a valuation, not financial advice.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
symbolYesStock symbol in the form TICKER.EXCHANGE as returned by resolve_stock, e.g. AAPL.US, SAP.XETRA, NESN.SW. A bare ticker (AAPL) also works and is resolved like the website search.
request_idNoOptional: stable id for this call; a retry with the same id is not counted twice.
analysis_session_idNoOptional: reuse the same id for all tool calls that answer ONE user question, so they count once against the daily limit.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: per-account rate limits, the exact limit-exhausted status, the fact that the values cannot be derived from other fields, watchlist side effects, and a not-financial-advice disclaimer. This is unusually rich disclosure for a read tool.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The critical facts (limit, limit-reached status) are front-loaded and useful, but the description is one long run-on block and repeats the deep_link explanation twice ("fair value history chart" and per-model bear/base/bull case appear in two sentences). It is over-sized for what it communicates.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract, and it does: it documents every notable field (valuation_status enum semantics, upside_band bands, quality_score, evidence_level, deep_link, watchlist flag, optional AI fields). An agent can consume the response without further guessing.

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%, and the schema already explains symbol format, request_id retry de-duplication, and analysis_session_id limit sharing. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ("Full Fair Value Calculator verdict for one stock") and enumerates the payload it returns. It is clearly distinguishable from get_stock_preview, screen_stocks, and the watchlist siblings 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 Guidelines4/5

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

Gives strong context on when it is callable (free accounts 3/day, Pro 50) and what happens at the limit ("free_daily_limit_reached" with no valuation), which is real routing information. It does not, however, name an alternative such as get_stock_preview for a lighter lookup or state explicit exclusions, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.