Skip to main content
Glama

Moltline Business Suite

Target Price

target_price
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compute the selling price needed to hit a target margin percentage. FREE.

Typical input {"unit_cost": 12, "target_margin_pct": 60} returns {"required_price": 30.0, "unit_margin": 18.0, "equivalent_markup_pct": 150.0}.

The inverse of unit_economics - solves for price from a target margin. Use when the margin is the fixed requirement. Not when the price is already set. Errors: on invalid, missing, or malformed input this tool never raises a protocol error — it returns {"error": ""} (for example {"error": "target_margin_pct must be between 0 and 100"}). Every call is read-only and idempotent, so after correcting the input it is always safe to retry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
unit_costYesVariable cost per unit; must be 0 or greater, e.g. 12.0.
target_margin_pctYesDesired gross margin percentage, strictly between 0 and 100, e.g. 60 for a 60% margin.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description reinforces these while adding that the tool 'never raises a protocol error' and instead returns a structured error object. It also explains the retry safety after correcting input, which is actionable behavior beyond what annotations provide.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a useful example and then usage and error behavior. Every sentence contributes information, and the structure is logical with no redundancy or wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers purpose, usage, examples, error behavior, and idempotency. Combined with the comprehensive input and output schemas, an agent has all information needed to invoke the tool correctly without gaps.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage of both parameters with descriptive details, so the description is not required to redefine them. The description adds a concrete example (unit_cost=12, target_margin_pct=60) and output, but this does not introduce new semantics beyond the schema. Thus a 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?

The description explicitly states 'Compute the selling price needed to hit a target margin percentage' and identifies the tool as the inverse of unit_economics, clearly distinguishing it from that sibling. The verb 'Compute' and the resource 'selling price' make the function unambiguous and specific.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when the margin is the fixed requirement. Not when the price is already set.' It also names the inverse relationship to unit_economics, providing clear context for selecting this tool over alternatives.

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.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The financial calculation tools (cash_runway, loan_payment, target_price, unit_economics) are clearly distinct in their inputs and outputs. However, within the product listing tools (list_products, get_free_skill, get_full_skill, get_full_product), the differentiation relies heavily on the 'FREE' vs 'PREMIUM' tags and the notion of 'free gateway skill' vs 'paid skills', which creates some ambiguity. An agent could easily pick get_free_skill when it actually needs get_full_skill.

Naming Consistency4/5

The tool set uses a mix of verb_noun (list_products, get_free_skill, get_full_product) and simple noun phrases (cash_runway, loan_payment, target_price, unit_economics). While the 'get_*' prefix creates a consistent pattern for product/skill access, the standalone financial calculation tools break this pattern. Nevertheless, the naming is still clear and predictable within each subgroup.

Tool Count5/5

With 8 tools, the set is well-scoped for a 'business' server that covers two clear domains: financial calculations (4 tools) and product/skill browsing (4 tools). Each tool covers a distinct operation without redundancy, and the count feels appropriate for the stated purpose.

Completeness3/5

The financial calculation tools cover common business math (runway, loan payments, margin/pricing, break-even), but lack coverage for revenue metrics (e.g., ARR, MRR), ROI, or depreciation. The product browsing tools provide a clear CRUD-like flow (list -> get), but there is no way to search or filter products, and the missing 'search_catalog' is referenced as existing on another server. This is a minor gap that may require agents to switch servers.

Resources