Skip to main content
Glama

company_break_even

Calculate break-even for a window by combining goods and services margins with prorated fixed costs; output operating result, break-even revenue, safety margin, leverage, and gap-closing changes.

Instructions

Build the sealed break-even for the window: the goods contribution from the margin report and the services contribution from the services margin (both built now from the persisted chains) against the fixed cost of every persisted cost register overlapping the window, prorated by day; the operating result, the break-even revenue at the blended contribution margin, the margin of safety, the operating leverage, and the revenue, margin, or fixed-cost change that closes a gap; no register means the fixed cost is unknown, never zero (payload: optional window_start, window_end, profiles).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nowNo
engineNo
operationNobuild
entity_refNo
project_idYes
bundle_jsonYes
payload_jsonNo{}

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.2

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful behavior beyond the schema: contributions are built now from persisted chains, fixed costs are prorated by day, and critically, a missing register means fixed cost is unknown, never zero. This edge-case disclosure is valuable for correct interpretation. Side effects or read-only guarantees are not stated, but that is partially mitigated by the presence of an 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 a single dense sentence with no filler and a front-loaded purpose statement. However, the long string of semicolon-separated clauses and domain jargon makes parsing harder than necessary. It earns its place but would benefit from structured presentation.

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?

The description is strong on financial methodology and outputs, and the no-register-never-zero rule is a crucial edge case. But for a tool with 7 params and zero schema descriptions, it is incomplete for invocation: required parameters are opaque, operation semantics are not covered, and the mapping of window/profiles into payload_json is not explained. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the input side remains under-specified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate heavily. It only mentions that the payload optionally contains window_start, window_end, and profiles. Required parameters such as project_id and bundle_json, plus engine, operation, now, and entity_ref, are entirely unexplained. This is a significant gap for an agent preparing a valid call.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Build the sealed break-even for the window' and enumerates the exact outputs (operating result, break-even revenue at blended contribution margin, margin of safety, operating leverage, gap-closing change). It is clearly distinct from siblings by specifying its inputs (goods contribution from margin report, services contribution, persisted cost registers). The term 'sealed' is mildly jargon-heavy, but the overall purpose is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the tool is for company-level break-even analysis and names its data sources, but it never states when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. Among many company_* siblings, an agent must infer usage from domain knowledge rather than being explicitly routed.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools