Skip to main content
Glama

profitability-market

calculate_ebitda_margin

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate the EBITDA margin: EBITDA divided by revenue — operating profitability before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation, expressed as a share of sales. Formula: EBITDA Margin = EBITDA / Revenue. WHEN TO USE: Use to compare core operating profitability across companies with different capital structures, tax regimes and depreciation policies. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do NOT use when EBITDA is negative (the margin is negative and less meaningful); EBITDA also ignores capital intensity, so pair with return or free-cash-flow metrics. 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 { ebitda_margin: decimal (e.g. 0.25 = 25%), ebitda_margin_pct: number (e.g. 25.0), inputs }. PARAMETERS: ebitda (required): Earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation, e.g. 800000. revenue (required): Revenue (net sales) over the same period, e.g. 3200000. Must be > 0.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ebitdaYesEarnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation, e.g. 800000.
revenueYesRevenue (net sales) over the same period, e.g. 3200000. Must be > 0.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds concrete details: pure deterministic calculation, no side effects or network access, identical inputs produce identical outputs, and division by zero or non-finite inputs yield an explicit error. This goes well beyond the annotations and clarifies error handling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear sections and front-loads the purpose, but it is verbose for a two-parameter calculation. The formula is stated twice (once in prose, once as 'Formula: ...'), and the PARAMETERS section duplicates the input schema verbatim, so several sentences do not earn their place.

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 the simple calculation, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers purpose, usage, behavior, error handling, and the return shape. An agent has everything needed to call the tool correctly and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents both parameters with examples and the revenue > 0 constraint. The description repeats the same parameter descriptions without adding format, syntax, or edge-case meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb (Calculate) and resource (EBITDA margin) and provides the exact formula, making the operation unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling ratio calculators (e.g., operating or net margin), so an agent must infer the distinction from the concept description alone.

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, specifying the scenario (comparing operating profitability across differing capital structures) and exclusions (negative EBITDA, ignoring capital intensity). It also suggests pairing with return or free-cash-flow metrics, effectively directing the agent to alternative tools.

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.

Resources