OptimistFi

get_valuation

Read-only

Trailing valuation ratios: P/E, EV/EBITDA, price/sales, price/cash-flow, price/book.

Computed over the issuer's own filed financials rather than taken from a vendor, so each
ratio states the fiscal period its denominator came from — a trailing ratio built on a year
that ended ten months ago is normal, but only checkable when the date is visible.
A ratio with a negative denominator is WITHHELD with the reason, never reported: a
loss-making company's P/E is meaningless, and a negative one reads as cheap.
Set history=True for the multi-year view: the same ratios as at each of the last `periods`
fiscal year-ends, each priced with that year's own share count and close.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`entity`	Yes
`history`	No
`periods`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses significant behavioral details: ratios are built on the issuer's own filings rather than vendor data, the denominator's fiscal period is shown, negative denominators are withheld with a reason, and history mode uses each year's share count and close. This is exactly the kind of context agents need to interpret results correctly.

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 information-dense but well-structured: it opens with the exact metrics, then explains the data source and caveats, then closes with the optional history behavior. Each sentence adds value and the most important facts are front-loaded.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not explain return formatting. It covers the tool's core behavior, a critical edge case (negative denominators), the fiscal-period nuance, and the optional multi-year mode. For a read-only valuation tool with three parameters, this is complete.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It does explain history and periods in meaningful terms ('multi-year view', 'last `periods` fiscal year-ends'), but the required entity parameter is only indirectly referenced as 'issuer' and never explicitly defined. This is a notable gap for the one required argument.

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?

The description names a specific set of trailing valuation ratios (P/E, EV/EBITDA, price/sales, price/cash-flow, price/book) and clearly states the tool computes them from the issuer's filed financials. It is distinct from generic 'get valuation' wording, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools like get_industry_valuation_medians.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives good guidance for the history parameter ('Set history=True for the multi-year view') but provides no explicit when-to-use-this-tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of related sibling tools. Selection guidance is essentially absent.

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

All OptimistFi 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?