io.github.simonmak-ascent/fair-value

Valuation Impairment

valuation_impairment

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compute impairment valuations for intangible assets when standard DCF, NAV, or CCA methods don't apply. Use for read-only, deterministic intangible valuation cases.

Instructions

Valuation Impairment (valuation_impairment) — 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_impairment' 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_impairment'; 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 read-only/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: deterministic, no external calls, no authentication required, and an error envelope rather than an exception on unsupported fields. That error-handling contract is valuable context beyond the annotations.

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 tool name and a routing rule, which is good, but the opening clause is awkward and repetitive ('a intangible valuation valuation capability') and the middle sentence restates the same routing idea. It is acceptable but not tightly written.

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 no prose, and the description covers routing, auth, and error behavior. However, for a wrapper whose only job is forwarding arguments, it never tells the agent what valid arguments look like, leaving a real gap for invocation.

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%, and the single 'arguments' param is documented in the schema as forwarded fields. The description adds only that unsupported fields return an error envelope and that callers should match 'that tool's schema' — useful, but it does not say where that schema lives or what fields are valid.

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 names the resource (an intangible valuation 'valuation_impairment' capability) but the purpose is largely circular — it describes itself as forwarding to the same-named tool rather than stating what an impairment computation actually produces. It does distinguish itself as the fallback that native tools don't cover, which is its one clear differentiator.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('only for the intangible valuation case the native tools do not handle') and when-not ('prefer the native tool ... whenever it applies'), with named alternatives. The list of alternatives is partial relative to the large sibling set, but the routing intent is unambiguous.

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