tvm-fund

calculate_rvpi

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate Residual Value to Paid-In capital (RVPI): the current (unrealised) value of remaining assets divided by paid-in capital. Formula: RVPI = Residual Value / Paid-In Capital. WHEN TO USE: Use for fund reporting to show the unrealised multiple still held in the portfolio (mark-to-market or fair value of remaining investments). WHEN NOT TO USE: Do NOT use alone as a performance measure — residual value is an estimate, not cash (combine with DPI for the full TVPI picture). 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 { rvpi: number (e.g. 1.2 = 1.2x of paid-in still held), inputs }. PARAMETERS: residual_value (required): Current fair value of remaining (unrealised) investments, e.g. 1200000. Must be >= 0. paid_in (required): Paid-in capital contributed by investors, e.g. 1000000. Must be > 0.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`paid_in`	Yes	Paid-in capital contributed by investors, e.g. 1000000. Must be > 0.
`residual_value`	Yes	Current fair value of remaining (unrealised) investments, e.g. 1200000. Must be >= 0.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by describing pure deterministic behavior, no side effects, no network/storage access, idempotence, and error handling for division by zero or non-finite inputs. The description does not contradict the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, or destructiveHint 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 structured with clear labeled sections, front-loads the formula, and every sentence earns its place. It is detailed without being verbose or redundant.

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 two-parameter calculator with no output schema, the description provides the return shape, examples, parameter constraints, error behavior, and usage context. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small but meaningful layer: the formula relationship between the parameters, numeric interpretation (1.2 = 1.2x of paid-in still held), and concrete examples in the parameter descriptions.

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?

States exactly what the tool calculates with a definition and formula: RVPI = Residual Value / Paid-In Capital. It clearly names the resource and calculation, and the DPI/TVPI references help distinguish it from sibling calculators.

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?

Explicit WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE sections give direct guidance: use for fund reporting of unrealised multiple, but not alone as a performance measure, and combine with DPI for TVPI. This actively routes the agent to correct vs incorrect usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All tvm-fund tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

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

Need Help?