Skip to main content
Glama

liquidity-leverage

calculate_quick_ratio

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate the quick (acid-test) ratio: liquid assets excluding inventory divided by current liabilities — a stricter short-term solvency test than the current ratio. Formula: Quick Ratio = (Current Assets - Inventory) / Current Liabilities. WHEN TO USE: Use when inventory is slow-moving or hard to liquidate and you want a conservative view of short-term payment ability. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do NOT use for businesses where inventory converts to cash quickly (e.g. retailers with fast sell-through) — it understates true liquidity. 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 { quick_ratio: number (e.g. 1.2 = 1.2x), inputs }. PARAMETERS: current_assets (required): Total current assets, e.g. 500000. Must be >= 0. inventory (required): Inventory value to exclude, e.g. 120000. Must be >= 0 and <= current_assets. current_liabilities (required): Total current liabilities, e.g. 280000. Must be > 0.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inventoryYesInventory value to exclude, e.g. 120000. Must be >= 0 and <= current_assets.
current_assetsYesTotal current assets, e.g. 500000. Must be >= 0.
current_liabilitiesYesTotal current liabilities, e.g. 280000. Must be > 0.

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses behaviors beyond the annotations: pure deterministic calculation, no side effects, no network/storage access, idempotent and non-destructive, with explicit error behavior for division by zero or non-finite inputs. This adds substantial value that annotations alone do not provide, and it is consistent with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint 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 well-structured with clearly labeled sections: definition, formula, when to use, when not to use, behavior, returns, and parameters. Every section earns its place and key information is front-loaded; the length is justified by both usage guidance and edge-case behavior.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description explicitly documents the return format as a JSON object with quick_ratio and inputs. It covers edge cases, parameter constraints, formulas, and alternatives, making it fully self-sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaning with real-world examples (e.g., 500000, 120000, 280000) and the cross-field constraint that inventory must be <= current_assets, which the schema does not capture. It also clarifies the sign restriction on current_liabilities with 'Must be > 0'.

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 names a precise verb and resource: 'Calculate the quick (acid-test) ratio' and gives the formula. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the current ratio, calling itself a 'stricter short-term solvency test,' which helps an agent identify this tool among financial-ratio siblings.

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 has dedicated 'WHEN TO USE' and 'WHEN NOT TO USE' sections, providing explicit conditions such as 'use when inventory is slow-moving' and warnings against use for fast sell-through retailers. It clearly routes agents away from this tool in cases where it would understate liquidity.

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