Skip to main content
Glama

calculate_working_capital_turnover

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate working capital turnover: net sales divided by average working capital — how efficiently a company uses its working capital (current assets minus current liabilities) to generate revenue. Formula: Working Capital Turnover = Net Sales / Average Working Capital. WHEN TO USE: Use to assess how efficiently working capital is deployed; a higher turnover means each unit of working capital supports more sales (less capital trapped in operations). WHEN NOT TO USE: Do NOT use in isolation — a very high turnover can also signal under-investment or liquidity stress; compare against peers and the operating cycle. 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 { working_capital_turnover: number (e.g. 4.5 = 4.5x), inputs }. PARAMETERS: net_sales (required): Net sales (revenue) for the period, e.g. 4500000. Must be > 0. begin_working_capital (required): Working capital at period start (current assets - current liabilities), e.g. 900000. Must be > 0. end_working_capital (required): Working capital at period end (current assets - current liabilities), e.g. 1100000. Must be > 0.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
net_salesYesNet sales (revenue) for the period, e.g. 4500000. Must be > 0.
end_working_capitalYesWorking capital at period end (current assets - current liabilities), e.g. 1100000. Must be > 0.
begin_working_capitalYesWorking capital at period start (current assets - current liabilities), e.g. 900000. Must be > 0.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'no side effects, idempotent, non-destructive' statements are partly redundant. It does add genuinely new behavior: deterministic calculation with explicit errors on division by zero or non-finite inputs, plus the exact return shape.

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?

Front-loads the formula and definition, then uses labeled sections (WHEN TO USE / WHEN NOT TO USE / BEHAVIOUR / RETURNS / PARAMETERS) that make scanning easy. It is longer than strictly necessary, with some parameter detail duplicated from the schema, but no sentence is wasted.

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 compensates by specifying the JSON return object (working_capital_turnover plus inputs) and noting error behavior; combined with the 100%-covered schema, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the three parameters and their >0 constraints are fully documented in the schema already. The description restates the same definitions and examples with no added syntax or editorial guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Calculate working capital turnover'), gives the exact formula, and the metric's definition (current assets minus current liabilities), which clearly separates it from siblings like calculate_asset_turnover and calculate_inventory_turnover.

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?

Contains explicit WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE sections, explaining interpretation (higher turnover = more sales per unit of working capital) and warning against isolated use due to under-investment/liquidity-stress ambiguity, recommending peer and operating-cycle comparison.

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.

Resources