Skip to main content
Glama

Intangible Asset Valuation MCP Server

Transfer Pricing & Litigation

valuation_compliance
Read-onlyIdempotent

Transfer pricing and litigation: the Comparable Uncontrolled Price arm's-length range and patent infringement damages with pre-judgment interest. Method selects the formula. Use for OECD transfer-pricing pricing of intercompany intangibles and for patent infringement damages awards. For royalty-rate benchmarking to set a rate use valuation_royalty_analysis; for the substantive asset valuation use valuation_ip or valuation_income_methods. Per method: cup_transfer_price needs controlled_price + uncontrolled_prices; patent_infringement_damages needs lost_profits_or_royalty + infringement_period + discount_rate + prejudgment_interest_rate. uncontrolled_prices must contain at least one comparable price for the arm's-length range. Only method is required; all other parameters are method-dependent — supply those the selected method names and omit the rest (defaults apply where defined). Rates and premiums are decimals (0.10 = 10%). Pure arithmetic: no I/O and no external calls, rounded to 2 decimals; parameters belonging to other methods are accepted and ignored. An unknown method, or a missing method-required parameter, returns an error instead of a value.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
methodYesFormula to apply. Options: cup_transfer_price = Arm's-length range from comparable uncontrolled prices.; patent_infringement_damages = Lost profits or reasonable royalty plus prejudgment interest.
discount_rateNoPer-period discount rate as a decimal (0.10 = 10%).
controlled_priceNoIntercompany (controlled) price, in currency units.
infringement_periodNoInfringement period in years (≥ 0).
uncontrolled_pricesNoComparable uncontrolled prices, in currency units.
lost_profits_or_royaltyNoAnnual lost profits or reasonable royalty, in currency units.
prejudgment_interest_rateNoPre-judgment interest rate as a decimal (e.g. 0.05 = 5%).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNoError message when the call fails.
stepsNoIntermediate calculation steps for traceability (one string per step).
valueYesComputed valuation, rate, or metric.
methodNoFormula / method name that produced the result.
assumptionsNoModelling assumptions applied (list of strings or key/value object).
defaults_appliedNoOptional parameters that were not supplied, so their documented defaults were used.
formula_referenceNoMathematical formula or reference applied.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish a safe read-only, idempotent, closed-world profile, yet the description adds substantial context beyond them: pure arithmetic with no I/O or external calls, rounding to 2 decimals, cross-method parameters accepted and ignored, and error-on-unknown-method or missing-required-parameter behavior.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, leading with purpose then alternatives then method-specific params. Slightly repetitive around the method-dependency of parameters, but every clause carries operational information for a complex tool.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the remaining gaps: method selection, method-dependent required inputs, decimal-format convention for rates, default handling, and failure modes. Complete for a 7-parameter computational tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% so per-parameter meanings are already documented, but the description adds cross-parameter semantics the schema cannot express: the per-method required parameter sets, that only method is required with the rest method-dependent, and that unspecified defaults apply. It stops short of fully detailing every interaction but adds real value.

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 domain with concrete subtasks: CUP arm's-length range and patent infringement damages with pre-judgment interest. It names the sibling tools it is not (valuation_royalty_analysis, valuation_ip, valuation_income_methods), so an agent can distinguish it without inspecting 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?

Explicitly says when to use it (OECD transfer-pricing pricing of intercompany intangibles; patent infringement damages awards) and routes the agent away for royalty-rate benchmarking and substantive asset valuation, naming the correct 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.