Skip to main content
Glama

tvm-fund

calculate_dpi

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate Distributions to Paid-In capital (DPI): cumulative distributions returned to investors divided by paid-in capital — the realised multiple of a fund or investment. Formula: DPI = Total Distributions / Paid-In Capital. WHEN TO USE: Use for private equity / venture fund reporting to show how much cash investors have actually received back relative to what they put in. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do NOT use to measure total performance — DPI ignores unrealised residual value (pair with RVPI; TVPI = DPI + RVPI captures both). 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 { dpi: number (e.g. 0.8 = 0.8x of paid-in returned as cash), inputs }. PARAMETERS: distributions (required): Cumulative distributions returned to investors, e.g. 800000. Must be >= 0. paid_in (required): Paid-in capital contributed by investors, e.g. 1000000. Must be > 0.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paid_inYesPaid-in capital contributed by investors, e.g. 1000000. Must be > 0.
distributionsYesCumulative distributions returned to investors, e.g. 800000. Must be >= 0.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive annotations, the description discloses that this is a pure deterministic calculation, has no side effects, accesses no network or storage, and returns explicit errors for division by zero or non-finite inputs. This gives the agent a complete safety and failure-mode picture.

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 clear sections for formula, usage, non-usage, behavior, returns, and parameters. Every sentence is intentional, and the key formula and usage guidance are front-loaded.

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 appropriately specifies the JSON return shape including the dpi value and inputs. It also covers error behavior, parameter constraints, and relationships to sibling metrics, so nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 fully documents both parameters and their constraints. The description mainly restates the same information with examples, adding little semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly identifies the metric (DPI), gives the formula, and frames it as the realised multiple returned to investors. It explicitly differentiates DPI from RVPI and TVPI, which are sibling tools, so an agent can pick the correct one.

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 WHEN TO USE section specifies private equity/venture fund reporting, and WHEN NOT TO USE states that DPI should not be used for total performance because it ignores unrealised value. It also names RVPI and TVPI as the complementary alternatives.

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