io.github.simonmak-ascent/fair-value

Valuation Stakeholder

valuation_stakeholder

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compute startup stakeholder valuations when standard DCF, NAV, or CCA models don't apply. Returns deterministic, read-only results.

Instructions

Valuation Stakeholder (valuation_stakeholder) — 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_stakeholder' 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_stakeholder'; 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

A3.5/5.0

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 behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context the annotations do not: deterministic computation, no external calls, no auth required, and error-envelope behavior for unsupported fields instead of exceptions. That is genuine added value beyond the structured hints.

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?

The content is front-loaded well, but the opening 'Valuation Stakeholder (valuation_stakeholder) — a startup valuation valuation capability' is redundant restatement of name and title and contains an awkward duplication. The rest earns its place, so this is adequate rather than tight.

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-value detail is not required, and the description does note the shared result envelope. For a single-parameter passthrough tool, the routing guidance plus behavioral notes are close to complete; only the undefined nature of 'stakeholder valuation' leaves a gap.

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 there is a single optional 'arguments' passthrough object, so the baseline is 3. The description restates that arguments must match the target tool's schema and that unsupported fields error out, but adds no field-level meaning beyond the schema.

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?

The description identifies the tool as a 'startup valuation capability' and names it against a large sibling family, which is useful for routing. However, what a 'valuation_stakeholder' computation actually does is never explained — the term is circularly repeated rather than defined, leaving the agent unsure what business result this produces.

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 explicit routing guidance: use this only for the startup valuation case, and prefer named native alternatives (valuation_dcf, valuation_nav, valuation_cca, calculate_wacc, calculate_ecl, black_scholes_price) whenever they apply. The trigger for this tool is still defined circularly ('the valuation_stakeholder case'), so exclusion logic is stronger than inclusion logic.

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