Skip to main content
Glama

liquidity-leverage

calculate_cash_ratio

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate the cash ratio: cash and marketable securities divided by current liabilities — the most conservative liquidity measure. Formula: Cash Ratio = (Cash + Marketable Securities) / Current Liabilities. WHEN TO USE: Use for the strictest view of liquidity, or when a company is in distress and only cash-like assets can be relied on. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do NOT use in isolation for healthy operating businesses — it ignores receivables and inventory that normally convert to cash. 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 { cash_ratio: number (e.g. 0.5 = 0.5x), inputs }. PARAMETERS: cash_and_equivalents (required): Cash and cash equivalents, e.g. 80000. Must be >= 0. marketable_securities (required): Short-term marketable securities, e.g. 30000. Must be >= 0. current_liabilities (required): Total current liabilities, e.g. 220000. Must be > 0.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
current_liabilitiesYesTotal current liabilities, e.g. 220000. Must be > 0.
cash_and_equivalentsYesCash and cash equivalents, e.g. 80000. Must be >= 0.
marketable_securitiesYesShort-term marketable securities, e.g. 30000. Must be >= 0.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description reinforces this while adding important specifics: no side effects, no network/storage access, identical inputs produce identical outputs, and division by zero or non-finite inputs returns an explicit error. This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 longer than average but well organized with clear labeled sections: formula, WHEN TO USE, WHEN NOT TO USE, BEHAVIOUR, RETURNS, and PARAMETERS. The parameter section largely repeats the schema, but the other sections are information-dense and directly actionable.

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?

For a deterministic financial calculator with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool computes, how to call it, what constraints apply, what the return shape is, and how errors behave. 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by embedding each parameter in the formula and giving concrete examples and validation constraints. It also clarifies the relationship between the three inputs in a way the schema alone does not.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Calculate the cash ratio,' followed by the exact formula. It also positions the tool as the 'most conservative liquidity measure,' which helps distinguish it from sibling liquidity ratios like quick ratio and current ratio.

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?

Explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'WHEN NOT TO USE' sections state that this tool is for the strictest liquidity view or distress situations, and warn against using it in isolation for healthy operating businesses. This gives an agent clear decision criteria versus alternatives.

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

A4.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool computes a distinct, named financial ratio with a unique formula; even the three liquidity ratios are carefully differentiated by strictness and explicit WHEN TO USE/NOT guidance. There is no practical risk of an agent selecting the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow the identical calculate_<metric> pattern in snake_case, making the naming scheme highly predictable. The only minor variation is calculate_defensive_interval instead of ..._ratio, but it still fits the same verb-prefixed convention.

Tool Count5/5

Eight tools is a well-scoped set for a liquidity and leverage ratio calculator: four liquidity measures and four leverage measures, with no redundant or filler tools. The count is manageable for an agent to choose from without being over-conservative.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the standard liquidity ratios (current, quick, cash, defensive interval) and the core leverage/solvency ratios (debt-to-assets, debt-to-equity, equity multiplier, interest coverage). Since each tool is a pure calculation with no stateful workflow, there are no dead-end operations or lifecycle gaps.

Resources