Skip to main content
Glama

liquidity-leverage

calculate_equity_multiplier

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate the equity multiplier: total assets divided by shareholders’ equity — a leverage measure of how many units of assets each unit of equity supports. Formula: Equity Multiplier = Total Assets / Shareholders’ Equity. WHEN TO USE: Use in DuPont analysis (ROE = Net Margin x Asset Turnover x Equity Multiplier) or to quantify financial leverage. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do NOT use alone — a high multiplier can mean efficient leverage or distress depending on profitability (pair with ROE/ROA). 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 { equity_multiplier: number (e.g. 3.6 = 3.6x), inputs }. PARAMETERS: total_assets (required): Total assets, e.g. 720000. Must be > 0. shareholders_equity (required): Total shareholders’ equity, e.g. 200000. May be negative in distress.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
total_assetsYesTotal assets, e.g. 720000. Must be > 0.
shareholders_equityYesTotal shareholders’ equity, e.g. 200000. May be negative in distress.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description explains it is a 'pure deterministic calculation — no side effects, no network or storage access' and specifies that division by zero or non-finite inputs returns an explicit error. This gives an agent precise expectations beyond the boolean hints.

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 organized with labeled sections (WHEN TO USE, WHEN NOT TO USE, BEHAVIOUR, RETURNS, PARAMETERS) and front-loads the formula and purpose. Every section contributes new operational information, and there is no filler.

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 calculator with two parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers usage context, error behavior, return shape, and parameter constraints. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke the tool 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%, and the description's PARAMETERS section largely mirrors the schema ('total_assets: Must be > 0', 'shareholders_equity: May be negative in distress'). The formula adds context, but the parameter descriptions themselves add little beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 equity multiplier' plus the exact formula 'total assets divided by shareholders’ equity'. It also distinguishes the tool by naming the metric's role in DuPont analysis, so an agent knows exactly what it computes and how it differs from sibling ratio calculators.

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?

The description provides explicit WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE sections, including the caution to pair with ROE/ROA and not use the multiplier alone. It stops short of naming alternative sibling tools (e.g., debt-to-equity), so the cross-tool decision is only partially addressed.

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