Skip to main content
Glama

valuation-api

calculate_unlever_beta

Read-onlyIdempotent

Unlever a (levered) equity beta to its asset beta using the Hamada formula — removing the financial-risk effect of debt so betas of companies with different capital structures can be compared. Formula: Beta(unlevered) = Beta(levered) / (1 + (1 - tax rate) x Debt/Equity). WHEN TO USE: Use when valuing a private company or a deal with a different capital structure than the public comparable — unlever the comps’ betas, average them, then relever at your target structure. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do NOT unlever with an inconsistent tax rate or debt/equity ratio — the result is only as clean as its inputs; for companies with significant non-debt liabilities consider a more advanced formula. 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 { unlevered_beta: number (e.g. 0.85), inputs }. PARAMETERS: levered_beta (required): The observed (levered) equity beta of the comparable company, e.g. 1.2. 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): Debt-to-equity ratio of the company whose beta is being unlevered (market values preferred), e.g. 0.5 = 0.5x. Must be >= 0.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tax_rateYesCorporate tax rate as a decimal between 0 and 1, e.g. 0.25 = 25%.
levered_betaYesThe observed (levered) equity beta of the comparable company, e.g. 1.2. Must be > 0.
debt_to_equityYesDebt-to-equity ratio of the company whose beta is being unlevered (market values preferred), e.g. 0.5 = 0.5x. 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 explicitly stating the calculation is 'pure deterministic', has 'no side effects, no network or storage access', is idempotent, and that division by zero/non-finite inputs 'return an explicit error instead of a number'. This adds concrete behavioral expectations that the readOnly/idempotent hints alone do not convey.

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?

Although lengthy, the description is organized into clearly labeled sections (formula, WHEN TO USE, WHEN NOT TO USE, BEHAVIOUR, RETURNS, PARAMETERS), making it scannable. Every sentence carries distinct information: no filler, no repetition of annotations, and the core formula is 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?

Even without an output schema, the description specifies the return shape ('JSON object { unlevered_beta: number, inputs }'), error behavior, and all required parameter constraints. For a pure calculation tool, it covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly and interpret results.

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?

The schema already documents each parameter thoroughly with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds modest value by including the formula linking parameters, an example output, and the nuance that debt_to_equity should use market values ('market values preferred'), which is genuinely additional guidance 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 uses a specific verb ('Unlever'), a precise resource ('a (levered) equity beta to its asset beta'), and names the exact method ('Hamada formula') with the formula written out. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling calculate_relever_beta by defining the inverse operation and framing the use case around comparing capital structures.

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 'WHEN TO USE' section provides a concrete scenario (valuing a private company/deal with different capital structure) and prescribes a workflow: unlever comps, average, and relever at target structure. The 'WHEN NOT TO USE' section lists specific conditions (inconsistent tax rate/D/E, non-debt liabilities) where the tool is inappropriate, giving agents clear decision criteria.

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