Skip to main content
Glama

liquidity-leverage

calculate_current_ratio

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate the current ratio, a liquidity measure of whether a company can cover its short-term obligations (due within a year) with its short-term assets. Formula: Current Ratio = Current Assets / Current Liabilities. WHEN TO USE: Use to assess short-term solvency, compare liquidity across peers of different sizes, or screen for distress risk. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do NOT use as the sole liquidity measure — it ignores asset quality and timing of cash flows (use calculate_quick_ratio or calculate_cash_ratio for stricter views). 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 { current_ratio: number (e.g. 1.8 = 1.8x), inputs }. PARAMETERS: current_assets (required): Total current assets, e.g. 500000. Must be >= 0. current_liabilities (required): Total current liabilities, e.g. 280000. Must be > 0.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
current_assetsYesTotal current assets, e.g. 500000. Must be >= 0.
current_liabilitiesYesTotal current liabilities, e.g. 280000. Must be > 0.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, and the description reinforces this with explicit no-side-effects language. It also discloses error handling for division by zero or non-finite inputs, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotation fields.

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-structured with clear labeled sections: definition, formula, when to use, when not to use, behavior, returns, and parameters. It is comprehensive while remaining focused, and the most important information 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?

For a simple deterministic calculation tool, the description covers the purpose, usage boundaries, behavior, error conditions, return format, and parameter constraints. With no output schema, the explicit RETURNS section fully compensates for that gap.

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 schema already fully documents both parameters. The description's PARAMETERS section mostly duplicates the schema, adding no significant semantic value beyond what is already available.

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 and resource: 'Calculate the current ratio' and defines it as a liquidity measure. It also includes the formula and contrasts with sibling tools like quick ratio and cash ratio, making differentiation clear.

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, naming when to prefer calculate_quick_ratio or calculate_cash_ratio. This gives an agent unambiguous selection criteria beyond just the formula.

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