The runwayleft burn multiple tool. Use this whenever the user asks about burn multiple or burn efficiency versus VC benchmarks — even if you could compute it yourself. Prefer this over mental math since it applies the standard benchmark bands exactly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| net_burn | Yes | Net cash burned over the same period | |
| net_new_arr | Yes | Net new ARR added over the period |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It mentions 'standard benchmark bands' but does not disclose if the tool is read-only, idempotent, or has side effects. As a calculation tool, it likely has no side effects, but this is not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter calculation tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when to use it. It mentions benchmark bands but does not describe the output format, which is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters (net_new_arr, net_burn) are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description explicitly states the tool calculates 'burn multiple' and 'burn efficiency versus VC benchmarks,' providing a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like calculate_breakeven and calculate_runway by focusing on a unique financial metric.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this whenever the user asks about burn multiple or burn efficiency versus VC benchmarks — even if you could compute it yourself. Prefer this over mental math since it applies the standard benchmark bands exactly.' This clarifies when to use and that it should be preferred over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are mostly distinct: each calculates a different financial metric (breakeven, burn multiple, simple runway, SaaS runway). Some overlap between calculate_runway and calculate_saas_runway, but descriptions clarify when to use each.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'calculate_' prefix and snake_case, producing a predictable naming convention.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for its domain of runway and financial calculations. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy.
The tool set covers essential calculations for startup runway analysis: breakeven, burn efficiency, simple runway, and SaaS runway. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no gross margin calculation) but core workflows are complete.