Skip to main content
Glama

valuation-api

calculate_enterprise_value

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate enterprise value (EV): the total value of a business to all capital providers — equity value plus net debt (total debt minus cash and equivalents). Formula: EV = Equity Value + Total Debt - Cash & Equivalents. WHEN TO USE: Use as the capital-structure-neutral measure of a company’s total value — the standard starting point for valuation multiples (EV/EBITDA, EV/Revenue) and M&A transaction values. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do NOT confuse EV with equity value (market cap) — EV is what you would pay to own the whole enterprise including its debt; use equity value for per-share figures. 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 { enterprise_value: number (currency), inputs }. PARAMETERS: equity_value (required): Equity value / market capitalisation, e.g. 5000000. Must be >= 0. total_debt (required): Total interest-bearing debt (short + long term), e.g. 2000000. Must be >= 0. cash_and_equivalents (required): Cash and cash equivalents to subtract, e.g. 500000. Must be >= 0.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
total_debtYesTotal interest-bearing debt (short + long term), e.g. 2000000. Must be >= 0.
equity_valueYesEquity value / market capitalisation, e.g. 5000000. Must be >= 0.
cash_and_equivalentsYesCash and cash equivalents to subtract, e.g. 500000. Must be >= 0.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds deterministic behavior and explicit error handling for invalid or non-finite inputs. The mention of division by zero is slightly irrelevant since the formula has no division, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The structured sections make the description scannable, and the core formula is front-loaded. Some redundancy exists in the BEHAVIOUR section, where annotation facts are repeated and the division-by-zero note is irrelevant, but overall the text is efficient.

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 pure calculation tool with three fully documented parameters and strong annotations, the description includes the formula, usage boundaries, return shape, and error behavior. Since there is no output schema, the explicit RETURNS line adds necessary context, and nothing important 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?

The schema already describes all three parameters fully with constraints and examples (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add much. The formula maps equity_value, total_debt, and cash_and_equivalents to the calculation, but adds no new semantic detail 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Calculate enterprise value') and provides the exact formula, distinguishing EV from equity value. It also clearly separates this from sibling valuation-multiple tools by focusing on the base EV 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 WHEN TO USE section names valuation multiples and M&A transaction values, while WHEN NOT TO USE explicitly warns against confusing EV with equity value and directs per-share use to equity value. This gives an agent both inclusion and exclusion criteria.

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 maps to a distinct financial formula or calculation, and the when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance cleanly separates closely related cash-flow metrics like NPV, IRR, and MOIC as well as CAPM, WACC, and DCF. There is no pair of tools that appears to perform the same operation.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority of tools follow a consistent calculate_<metric> snake_case pattern with descriptive names. irr_sensitivity breaks the pattern by omitting the calculate_ prefix, and mixing expanded names like cost_of_equity with abbreviations like wacc and moic is a minor deviation.

Tool Count5/5

Twelve tools is well within the ideal range for a focused financial-calculations server. Each tool covers a distinct valuation, discount-rate, or return-metric need without redundancy, so the count feels appropriately scoped.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the core valuation workflow: cost of equity, beta unlevering/relevering, WACC, DCF, enterprise-value multiples, and investment return metrics. It lacks a reverse equity-value calculation and an equity-side multiple like P/E, but those are workable gaps rather than severe dead ends.

Resources