io.github.simonmak-ascent/fair-value

Valuation Saas

valuation_saas

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compute startup valuations when native DCF, NAV, or CCA tools don't apply. Handles specialized startup cases with deterministic, read-only calculations.

Instructions

Valuation Saas (valuation_saas) — 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_saas' 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_saas'; 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

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations it adds that the computation is deterministic, makes no external calls, requires no authentication, and — most usefully — that unsupported fields return an error envelope rather than raising. The error-handling behavior is exactly the kind of trait annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads the name and scope, then sequences routing, safety, and error behavior efficiently. Slightly repetitive phrasing ('startup valuation valuation capability') and heavy em-dash use cost it a point.

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

Completeness4/5

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 detailed, and the description correctly points at the shared envelope. The one gap is that the referenced target tool schema is external and unavailable, leaving the agent without the actual supported fields.

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 pass-through 'arguments' object, so the baseline is 3. The description only says to match 'that tool's schema', which is not provided here, so it adds little syntax or meaning beyond the schema itself.

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?

It states a specific resource (startup valuation) and frames itself as a fallback endpoint, naming the native tools it stands apart from. It loses a point because the opening clause is muddled — it claims to cover 'corporate, startup, and intangible valuation' while the next sentence restricts it to the startup case only.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit routing guidance: use only for the startup valuation case native tools do not handle, and prefer the six named native tools whenever they apply. The condition that selects this tool and the alternatives are both spelled out.

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