Skip to main content
Glama

tvm-fund

calculate_tvpi

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate Total Value to Paid-In capital (TVPI): (distributions + residual value) divided by paid-in capital — the total multiple of a fund or investment including both realised and unrealised value. Formula: TVPI = (Distributions + Residual Value) / Paid-In Capital. WHEN TO USE: Use as the headline multiple for private equity / venture fund performance (equivalent to DPI + RVPI). WHEN NOT TO USE: Do NOT use TVPI to compare funds of different vintages/ages — it ignores the time value of money; combine it with a time-adjusted return analysis for cross-vintage comparison. 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 { tvpi: number (e.g. 2.0 = 2.0x total value on paid-in), inputs }. PARAMETERS: distributions (required): Cumulative distributions returned to investors, e.g. 800000. Must be >= 0. residual_value (required): Current fair value of remaining investments, e.g. 1200000. Must be >= 0. paid_in (required): Paid-in capital, e.g. 1000000. Must be > 0.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paid_inYesPaid-in capital, e.g. 1000000. Must be > 0.
distributionsYesCumulative distributions returned to investors, e.g. 800000. Must be >= 0.
residual_valueYesCurrent fair value of remaining investments, e.g. 1200000. Must be >= 0.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces and extends these by stating 'pure deterministic calculation — no side effects, no network or storage access' and additionally discloses error behavior ('Division by zero, non-finite inputs, or mathematically undefined combinations return an explicit error'), which structured annotations cannot convey. No contradiction.

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?

Though longer than typical, every section (formula, WHEN TO USE, WHEN NOT TO USE, BEHAVIOUR, RETURNS, PARAMETERS) is clearly labeled and earns its place. The core definition and formula are front-loaded, and no sentence is redundant filler.

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 fully compensates by specifying the return shape ('JSON object { tvpi: number (e.g. 2.0 = 2.0x total value on paid-in), inputs }') along with the formula, use/non-use cases, side-effect-free behavior, error handling, and per-parameter constraints. Nothing an agent needs to call 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% — all three parameters carry descriptions, examples, and constraints (paid_in > 0, distributions and residual_value >= 0). The description's PARAMETERS section largely restates the schema rather than adding new semantic meaning, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies. The formula does clarify how parameters combine, but that is formula context, not new per-parameter semantics.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Calculate Total Value to Paid-In capital (TVPI)') plus the complete formula. The 'equivalent to DPI + RVPI' note and the label 'headline multiple for private equity / venture fund performance' clearly distinguish it from sibling calculation tools like calculate_dpi and calculate_rvpi without needing to open their schemas.

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?

Contains explicit WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE sections: use as the headline PE/VC performance multiple, but do not use for cross-vintage comparison because 'it ignores the time value of money.' It also names a complement ('time-adjusted return analysis') for the exclusion case, giving an agent actionable routing guidance.

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