Skip to main content
Glama

valuation-api

calculate_relever_beta

Read-onlyIdempotent

Relever an unlevered (asset) beta to a target capital structure using the Hamada formula — restoring financial risk for the specific debt/equity mix of the company or deal being valued. Formula: Beta(levered) = Beta(unlevered) x (1 + (1 - tax rate) x Debt/Equity). WHEN TO USE: Use AFTER unlevering comparable betas: apply the average unlevered beta to your target company’s (or transaction’s) capital structure to obtain the beta for WACC. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do NOT relever onto an unrealistic target structure — extreme leverage produces extreme betas that may overstate risk; sanity-check the resulting cost of equity. BEHAVIOUR: pure deterministic calculation — no side effects, no network or storage access; idempotent and non-destructive; identical inputs always produce identical outputs. Division by zero, non-finite inputs, or mathematically undefined combinations return an explicit error instead of a number. RETURNS: JSON object { levered_beta: number (e.g. 1.15), inputs }. PARAMETERS: unlevered_beta (required): Unlevered (asset) beta, e.g. 0.85. Must be > 0. tax_rate (required): Corporate tax rate as a decimal between 0 and 1, e.g. 0.25 = 25%. debt_to_equity (required): Target debt-to-equity ratio (market values preferred), e.g. 0.6 = 0.6x. Must be >= 0.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tax_rateYesCorporate tax rate as a decimal between 0 and 1, e.g. 0.25 = 25%.
debt_to_equityYesTarget debt-to-equity ratio (market values preferred), e.g. 0.6 = 0.6x. Must be >= 0.
unlevered_betaYesUnlevered (asset) beta, e.g. 0.85. Must be > 0.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by detailing that the tool is a pure deterministic calculation with no side effects, no network or storage access, and identical outputs for identical inputs. It also discloses error behavior for division by zero, non-finite inputs, and undefined combinations, which the annotations do not specify.

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 well-organized into labeled sections (WHEN TO USE, WHEN NOT TO USE, BEHAVIOUR, RETURNS, PARAMETERS), making it scannable and front-loaded with the core purpose and formula. Despite its length, every sentence contributes useful information without repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description provides the return shape ({ levered_beta: number, inputs }) and error behavior, which is essential. It also gives enough financial context and constraints to call the tool correctly for a WACC-related valuation workflow.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although the schema covers all three parameters at 100%, the description adds meaningful context by embedding them in the Hamada formula and noting that debt_to_equity should use market values. It reinforces validation constraints with examples, which helps an agent understand the practical meaning of each parameter beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action — 'Relever an unlevered (asset) beta to a target capital structure using the Hamada formula' — with the exact formula and financial rationale. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate_unlever_beta and calculate_wacc by naming its role in building a levered beta for WACC.

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 includes explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'WHEN NOT TO USE' sections. It instructs agents to apply this tool AFTER unlevering comparable betas and warns against relevering onto unrealistic capital structures, providing practical decision-making 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.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct financial metric or formula, and the WHEN TO USE / WHEN NOT TO USE guidance clearly separates closely related concepts like DSO vs. receivables turnover, current vs. quick vs. cash ratio, and DPI/RVPI/TVPI. Even the overlapping investment-return tools (NPV, IRR, MOIC, payback) are explicitly differentiated.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority of tools follow a clean calculate_<metric> snake_case pattern, making the set highly predictable. The single exception is irr_sensitivity, which breaks the calculate_ prefix convention but is still readable and not chaotic.

Tool Count2/5

At 52 tools, this far exceeds the 25+ threshold where a tool set becomes too heavy for its scope. Although each tool is a distinct pure calculation, the sheer breadth creates a large navigation and selection burden for agents.

Completeness4/5

The server covers an unusually broad range of valuation workflows: time value of money, DCF/WACC/cost of capital, relative valuation multiples, profitability/liquidity/efficiency ratios, and private equity fund metrics. Minor gaps exist, such as no dedicated free cash flow, net debt, or EBITDA margin calculators, but these are workable around.

Resources