Skip to main content
Glama

liquidity-leverage

calculate_debt_to_assets

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate the debt-to-assets ratio: total debt divided by total assets — the proportion of a company’s assets financed by debt. Formula: Debt-to-Assets = Total Debt / Total Assets. WHEN TO USE: Use to measure overall leverage and asset encumbrance; values above 0.5 indicate debt funds more than half of assets. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do NOT use when you need the debt-to-equity view of capital structure (use calculate_debt_to_equity). 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 { debt_to_assets: decimal (e.g. 0.42 = 42%), debt_to_assets_pct: number (e.g. 42.0), inputs }. PARAMETERS: total_debt (required): Total debt, e.g. 300000. Must be >= 0. total_assets (required): Total assets, e.g. 720000. Must be > 0.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
total_debtYesTotal debt, e.g. 300000. Must be >= 0.
total_assetsYesTotal assets, e.g. 720000. 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 mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds concrete guarantees: no side effects, no network or storage access, identical inputs produce identical outputs, and division by zero or non-finite inputs returns an explicit error. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but well-organized with labeled sections. Every sentence carries information: formula, use case, alternative, behavior, error handling, return shape, and parameter constraints. No filler or redundancy that hurts usability.

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 two-parameter deterministic calculation with no output schema, this is complete: it gives the formula, return object shape, error behavior, and parameter rules. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke 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 schema already documents both parameters with constraints, examples, and required status. The description repeats the parameter details with the same examples and constraints, adding no meaning beyond what the schema provides; the baseline of 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?

The description opens with a specific action and resource: 'Calculate the debt-to-assets ratio' followed by the exact formula and financial meaning (proportion of assets financed by debt). It also names the sibling tool calculate_debt_to_equity as the alternative, making differentiation explicit.

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?

It has explicit WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE sections, including a numeric threshold (above 0.5) and a direct pointer to calculate_debt_to_equity for the debt-to-equity view. An agent can decide correctly without inferring.

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