io.github.simonmak-ascent/fair-value

Valuation Advanced

valuation_advanced

Read-onlyIdempotent

Computes advanced startup valuations when standard DCF, NAV, or CCA models do not apply, using supplied inputs to return deterministic results.

Instructions

Valuation Advanced (valuation_advanced) — a startup valuation valuation capability, exposed through this server so one endpoint covers corporate, startup, and intangible valuation. Use it only for the startup valuation 'valuation_advanced' case that the native tools do not handle; prefer the native tool (valuation_dcf, valuation_nav, valuation_cca, calculate_wacc, calculate_ecl, or black_scholes_price) whenever it applies. Read-only, deterministic computation: no external calls and no authentication required. Pass an 'arguments' object matching that tool's schema; unsupported fields return an error envelope rather than raising. Returns the shared result envelope.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`arguments`	No	Arguments forwarded to startup valuation 'valuation_advanced'; see that tool's schema for supported fields.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`error`	No	Error detail, present only when status='error'.
`steps`	No	Ordered computation steps, when the method reports them.
`value`	No	Primary result: a number for scalar tools, an object for valuation tools.
`method`	No	Method or tool name that produced the result.
`status`	Yes	'ok' on success, 'error' on failure.
`ticker`	No	Ticker the result pertains to, when applicable.
`assumptions`	No	Inputs and assumptions used, echoed for traceability.
`formula_ref`	No	Formula or standards reference for the method.
`data_timestamp`	No	ISO-8601 UTC timestamp of the underlying data, when fetched.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 3, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious traits: deterministic computation, no external calls, no authentication, unsupported fields returning an error envelope rather than raising, and a shared result envelope. This is substantive context beyond the annotations, though the envelope itself is not described.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Front-loads name and purpose, but wastes words on the redundant 'valuation valuation capability' and repeats the tool name specifying itself as the target. The routing and behavior sentences earn their place; the framing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, but the opaque 'arguments' pass-through means an agent cannot discover supported fields from either the description or the schema. The pointing to a tool schema that is not exposed is the key gap, leaving it only minimally sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% and there is a single 'arguments' parameter already documented in the schema. The description restates that fields must match the upstream tool's schema and that unsupported fields error, but the upstream schema is never shown, so it adds no usable field-level meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose3/5

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

It identifies itself as a startup valuation capability covering corporate/startup/intangible cases and as a fallback endpoint, but the phrasing is circular ('valuation valuation capability') and the referenced native 'valuation_advanced' tool is not in the sibling list, leaving the actual scope ambiguous. An agent can infer it is a catch-all proxy, but not precisely what it computes.

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?

It explicitly states when to use it (only for the startup case native tools do not handle) and names concrete alternatives (valuation_dcf, valuation_nav, valuation_cca, calculate_wacc, calculate_ecl, black_scholes_price). The routing intent is clear, though only a fraction of the 30+ siblings are enumerated.

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