Skip to main content
Glama

get_portfolio_value_distribution

Analyze patent portfolio value distribution to identify lucrative technology spaces based on estimated patent valuations, excluding design patents. Requires keywords or IPC classification for search.

Instructions

Assess the lucrativeness of a technology space based on the spread of estimated patent valuation (simple families). Higher value buckets indicate more lucrative technologies. Design patents are excluded. Note: Search must contain either keywords or IPC. If both are provided, IPC is prioritized.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keywordsNoKeywords to search within patent title and abstract/summary. Supports AND, OR, NOT logic. Example: "mobile phone AND (screen OR battery)"
ipcNoPatent IPC classification code. Used to specify a particular technology field.
apply_start_timeNoPatent application start year (yyyy format). Filters by application filing date.
apply_end_timeNoPatent application end year (yyyy format). Filters by application filing date.
public_start_timeNoPatent publication start year (yyyy format). Filters by publication date.
public_end_timeNoPatent publication end year (yyyy format). Filters by publication date.
authorityNoPatent authority code (e.g., CN, US, EP, JP). Filters by patent office. Use OR for multiple, e.g., "US OR EP".

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the 'get_portfolio_value_distribution' tool. It builds URL search parameters from the input arguments and delegates to the shared 'callPatsnapApi' helper to fetch data from PatSnap API endpoint 'portfolio-value'.
    async function getPortfolioValueDistribution(args: BasePatentArgs): Promise<ServerResult> {
      const params = buildCommonSearchParams(args);
      // No 'lang' parameter for this endpoint
      return callPatsnapApi('portfolio-value', params, 'get portfolio value distribution');
    }
  • Type and JSON schema definition for the input arguments accepted by the 'get_portfolio_value_distribution' tool (shared across similar patent search tools). Defines optional properties for keywords, IPC, date ranges, and authority.
    const basePatentInputSchema = {
        type: 'object' as const, // Use 'as const' for stricter type checking
        properties: {
            keywords: { type: 'string', description: 'Keywords to search within patent title and abstract/summary. Supports AND, OR, NOT logic. Example: "mobile phone AND (screen OR battery)"' },
            ipc: { type: 'string', description: 'Patent IPC classification code. Used to specify a particular technology field.' },
            apply_start_time: { type: 'string', description: 'Patent application start year (yyyy format). Filters by application filing date.' },
            apply_end_time: { type: 'string', description: 'Patent application end year (yyyy format). Filters by application filing date.' },
            public_start_time: { type: 'string', description: 'Patent publication start year (yyyy format). Filters by publication date.' },
            public_end_time: { type: 'string', description: 'Patent publication end year (yyyy format). Filters by publication date.' },
            authority: { type: 'string', description: 'Patent authority code (e.g., CN, US, EP, JP). Filters by patent office. Use OR for multiple, e.g., "US OR EP".' }
        },
        // Add a note about requiring keywords or IPC for most tools
        description: "Requires either 'keywords' or 'ipc' to be specified for a meaningful search. If both are provided, IPC is prioritized by the API."
    };
  • src/index.ts:383-386 (registration)
    Tool registration in the ListToolsRequestHandler response. Specifies the tool name, description, and references the input schema.
      name: 'get_portfolio_value_distribution',
      description: 'Assess the lucrativeness of a technology space based on the spread of estimated patent valuation (simple families). Higher value buckets indicate more lucrative technologies. Design patents are excluded. Note: Search must contain either keywords or IPC. If both are provided, IPC is prioritized.',
      inputSchema: basePatentInputSchema // Uses base schema as 'lang' is not applicable
    }
  • src/index.ts:403-403 (registration)
    Registration of the tool name mapped to its handler function in the dispatch object used by CallToolRequestHandler.
    'get_portfolio_value_distribution': getPortfolioValueDistribution, // Add new tool here
  • TypeScript type definition for the input arguments of the handler function.
    type BasePatentArgs = { keywords?: string; ipc?: string; apply_start_time?: string; apply_end_time?: string; public_start_time?: string; public_end_time?: string; authority?: string };
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context beyond basic functionality: it explains that higher value buckets indicate more lucrative technologies, design patents are excluded, and search logic prioritizes IPC over keywords. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., distribution format), which are important for a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema.

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 description is appropriately sized (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first states the purpose and key insight, the second adds exclusions, and the third provides critical search logic. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for constraints).

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and key behavioral traits, but lacks output details (what the valuation distribution looks like), error conditions, or performance characteristics. With no output schema, the agent must infer return values from the description alone, which is insufficient for full understanding.

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%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema: it reinforces that 'keywords' or 'ipc' are required for a meaningful search and clarifies IPC prioritization, but doesn't provide additional meaning for parameters like date ranges or authority. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Assess the lucrativeness of a technology space based on the spread of estimated patent valuation (simple families).' It specifies the verb ('assess'), resource ('technology space'), and key metric ('spread of estimated patent valuation'), distinguishing it from siblings focused on citations, litigation, trends, etc. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (e.g., 'get_wheel_of_innovation' might overlap in assessing technology spaces).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for usage: 'Higher value buckets indicate more lucrative technologies. Design patents are excluded. Note: Search must contain either keywords or IPC. If both are provided, IPC is prioritized.' This gives explicit guidance on when to use (for assessing lucrativeness via patent valuation spread) and constraints (excludes design patents, requires keywords or IPC). It doesn't specify when NOT to use or name alternatives among siblings, but the context is well-defined.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/KunihiroS/patsnap-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server