Skip to main content
Glama

tvm-fund

calculate_annuity_present_value

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate the present value of an ordinary annuity: a series of equal payments received (or paid) at the END of each period, discounted at a given rate. Formula: Annuity PV = PMT x (1 - (1 + r)^-n) / r. WHEN TO USE: Use to value a fixed stream of level payments (e.g. lease income, lottery-style payouts, bond coupons held to maturity, or a stream of loan repayments received). WHEN NOT TO USE: Do NOT use for payments at the START of each period (annuity due — adjust by multiplying by (1 + r)), for growing payments (growing annuity), or for perpetual streams (use calculate_perpetuity_value). 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, non-finite inputs, or mathematically undefined combinations return an explicit error instead of a number. RETURNS: JSON object { annuity_present_value: number (currency), inputs }. PARAMETERS: payment (required): Payment amount per period, e.g. 50000. Must be > 0 for a normal inflow annuity. rate (required): Periodic discount rate as a decimal, e.g. 0.06 = 6% (never pass percentage points). Use rate = 0 for an undiscounted sum. periods (required): Number of payments/periods, e.g. 10. Must be >= 1.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rateYesPeriodic discount rate as a decimal, e.g. 0.06 = 6% (never pass percentage points). Use rate = 0 for an undiscounted sum.
paymentYesPayment amount per period, e.g. 50000. Must be > 0 for a normal inflow annuity.
periodsYesNumber of payments/periods, e.g. 10. Must be >= 1.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description goes further by stating 'pure deterministic calculation — no side effects, no network or storage access' and explicitly defining error behavior for division by zero or non-finite inputs. This adds meaningful context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 clear sections (definition, formula, when to use, when not to use, behavior, returns, parameters). Every sentence earns its place, and key usage constraints are front-loaded before the parameter details.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explicitly stating the return format (JSON object with annuity_present_value and inputs). All three parameters, their constraints, and edge cases are covered. The sibling context is addressed with clear exclusion criteria, making the tool self-contained for correct invocation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the rate=0 use case ('undiscounted sum'), reiterating that rate must be a decimal not percentage points, and documenting the return object shape with 'inputs'. These details go slightly beyond the schema.

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 present value of an ordinary annuity') and precisely defines the payment timing ('END of each period'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like calculate_perpetuity_value, and the formula removes any ambiguity about the calculation.

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 with concrete examples (lease income, lottery-style payouts, bond coupons). It names alternatives (annuity due adjustment, growing annuity, calculate_perpetuity_value) and leaves no inference required.

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

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a mathematically distinct calculation (single-sum PV/FV, annuity, perpetuity, payback, fund multiples). The descriptions include explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'WHEN NOT TO USE' sections with cross-references, making it unambiguous which tool applies to which scenario.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the exact pattern verb_noun with the consistent 'calculate_' prefix (e.g., calculate_present_value, calculate_payback_period). The naming convention is uniform across the entire set.

Tool Count5/5

11 tools is well within the ideal range for a focused domain. Each tool addresses a distinct calculation relevant to time-value-of-money and fund performance, with no redundant entries.

Completeness3/5

The set covers many core calculations but is missing NPV and IRR, which are explicitly referenced as the recommended tools in several descriptions (e.g., payback periods, TVPI). This creates a notable gap that could lead agents to follow cross-references to non-existent tools.

Resources