io.github.simonmak-ascent/fair-value

Valuation Discount Rate

valuation_discount_rate

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate a discount rate for intangible asset valuation when standard DCF, NAV, or CCA methods do not apply.

Instructions

Valuation Discount Rate (valuation_discount_rate) — a intangible valuation valuation capability, exposed through this server so one endpoint covers corporate, startup, and intangible valuation. Use it only for the intangible valuation 'valuation_discount_rate' 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 intangible valuation 'valuation_discount_rate'; 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

B3.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: deterministic computation, no external calls, no authentication, and the error-envelope-instead-of-raise contract for unsupported fields. These are real operational facts not present in the structured fields.

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-loaded with the name, but the phrasing is repetitive ('intangible valuation valuation capability') and the routing list of six sibling tools is dense. Most sentences earn their place, though the opening clause is filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the passthrough contract is stated. However, an agent still cannot tell what the discount rate tool computes or what arguments it accepts beyond being pointed at another schema, which is a real gap for a valuation capability.

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?

There is one optional passthrough parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds only that fields are forwarded to the underlying tool's schema and that unsupported fields error out — marginal but correct. Baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description defines the tool almost entirely by restating its own name — 'a intangible valuation valuation capability' — and never states what a discount rate computation actually produces (WACC-style discounting, intangible asset rate, etc.). It routes away from siblings but never positively establishes its own purpose, leaving an agent with no functional understanding of the resource.

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 gives an explicit routing rule: use only for the intangible 'valuation_discount_rate' case the native tools don't handle, and prefer named native tools (valuation_dcf, calculate_wacc, etc.) when they apply. The 'when-not' side is strong; only the boundary of 'which intangible cases' remains vague.

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