Skip to main content
Glama

efficiency

calculate_fixed_asset_turnover

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate fixed asset turnover: net sales divided by average net fixed assets — how efficiently a company uses its plant, property and equipment to generate sales. Formula: Fixed Asset Turnover = Net Sales / Average Net Fixed Assets. WHEN TO USE: Use for capital-intensive businesses to gauge whether fixed assets are earning their keep (e.g. manufacturing, logistics). WHEN NOT TO USE: Do NOT use for asset-light businesses (software, services) where the ratio is misleadingly high and uninformative. 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 or non-finite inputs returns an explicit error instead of a number. RETURNS: JSON object { fixed_asset_turnover: number (e.g. 2.1 = 2.1x per year), inputs }. PARAMETERS: net_sales (required): Net sales / revenue for the period, e.g. 900000. Must be >= 0. begin_net_fixed_assets (required): Net fixed assets (PP&E after depreciation) at period start, e.g. 400000. Must be >= 0. end_net_fixed_assets (required): Net fixed assets at period end, e.g. 450000. Must be >= 0.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
net_salesYesNet sales / revenue for the period, e.g. 900000. Must be >= 0.
end_net_fixed_assetsYesNet fixed assets at period end, e.g. 450000. Must be >= 0.
begin_net_fixed_assetsYesNet fixed assets (PP&E after depreciation) at period start, e.g. 400000. Must be >= 0.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds concrete behavioral details: pure deterministic calculation, no network/storage access, identical inputs always yield identical outputs, and explicit error behavior on division by zero or non-finite inputs. This fully informs the agent about side effects and edge cases.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured with labeled sections (formula, WHEN TO USE, BEHAVIOUR, RETURNS, PARAMETERS) and front-loads the core definition. It is somewhat verbose and repeats schema parameter descriptions, but each section earns its place for a financial calculation tool with edge-case behavior.

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 fully explains the return format as a JSON object with fixed_asset_turnover and inputs. It covers edge cases (division by zero), usage guidance, behavior, and parameter constraints. Given the tool's low complexity and rich annotations, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with examples, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the formula uses the average of begin and end net fixed assets, which is not in the schema, and by providing a concrete numeric example (900000/400000/450000) in context. This goes beyond simple parameter repetition.

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 verb ('Calculate'), the exact resource ('fixed asset turnover'), and the formula ('Net Sales / Average Net Fixed Assets'). It clarifies that this refers to net fixed assets (PP&E after depreciation), distinguishing it from the sibling calculate_asset_turnover. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE sections give clear context: use for capital-intensive businesses like manufacturing/logistics, avoid for asset-light businesses like software/services. However, it does not name an alternative sibling tool to use instead, so the guidance stops short of a full routing recommendation.

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
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool calculates a distinct financial efficiency ratio, but some boundaries are close: the turnover/day pairs (e.g., inventory_turnover vs. days_inventory_outstanding) cover conceptually related metrics, and asset_turnover vs. fixed_asset_turnover could initially be confused. The detailed WHEN TO USE guidance does help disambiguate, so misselection risk is low but not zero.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the exact same calculate_<metric> pattern, making the set highly predictable and easy to scan. There are no mixed conventions, position variations, or inconsistent verb forms.

Tool Count5/5

Nine tools is a well-scoped size for a financial efficiency calculation server. Each tool corresponds to a standard, distinct efficiency ratio, and none feel redundant or unnecessary.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the core efficiency ratio family comprehensively: asset, fixed asset, inventory, receivable, and payable turnover, plus their days-based counterparts and the cash conversion cycle. Minor gaps remain, such as no direct working-capital-turnover or operating-cycle calculator, but agents can assemble those from the existing outputs.

Resources