Intangible Asset Valuation

Human Capital

valuation_human_capital

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculates assembled workforce value via replacement cost, training, and attrition, and key-person value from revenue contribution and departure risk. Select method accordingly.

Instructions

Human capital: assembled-workforce value by replacement cost and key-person value from revenue contribution and departure risk. Method selects the formula. Use for assembled workforce and key-person intangibles; assembled_workforce nets training and attrition into a replacement cost. For customer-related assets use valuation_customer; for technology assets use valuation_technology. Per method: assembled_workforce needs employee_count + avg_replacement_cost + training_cost + productivity_factor + attrition_rate; key_person needs revenue_contribution + replacement_cost + departure_probability + discount_rate. attrition_rate is in [0,1]; productivity_factor scales the replacement cost (1.0 = parity). Only method is required; all other parameters are method-dependent — supply those the selected method names and omit the rest (defaults apply where defined). Rates and premiums are decimals (0.10 = 10%). Pure arithmetic: no I/O and no external calls, rounded to 2 decimals; parameters belonging to other methods are accepted and ignored. An unknown method, or a missing method-required parameter, returns an error instead of a value.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`method`	Yes	Formula to apply. Options: assembled_workforce = Replacement cost including training, net of attrition.; key_person = Revenue contribution and replacement cost under departure risk.
`discount_rate`	No	Per-period discount rate as a decimal (0.10 = 10%).
`training_cost`	No	Training cost per employee, in currency units.
`attrition_rate`	No	Annual attrition rate, in [0,1].
`employee_count`	No	Number of employees (integer ≥ 0).
`replacement_cost`	No	Cost to replace the key person, in currency units.
`productivity_factor`	No	Productivity factor on replacement cost (1.0 = parity).
`avg_replacement_cost`	No	Average cost to replace one employee, in currency units.
`revenue_contribution`	No	Annual revenue contribution, in currency units.
`departure_probability`	No	Annual probability the key person departs, in [0,1].

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`error`	No	Error message when the call fails.
`steps`	No	Intermediate calculation steps for traceability (one string per step).
`value`	Yes	Computed valuation, rate, or metric.
`method`	No	Formula / method name that produced the result.
`assumptions`	No	Modelling assumptions applied (list of strings or key/value object).
`defaults_applied`	No	Optional parameters that were not supplied, so their documented defaults were used.
`formula_reference`	No	Mathematical formula or reference applied.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv2.1.1Oct 2, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / defaults_applied

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional parameters that were not supplied, so their documented defaults were used.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedv2.0.1Oct 1, 2026
- changedInput schema / properties / employee_count / description
```
Previous value: -"Number of employees."New value: +"Number of employees (integer ≥ 0)."
```

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.4Sep 30, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / steps / description

Previous value: -"Intermediate calculation steps for traceability."New value: +"Intermediate calculation steps for traceability (one string per step)."

removedOutput schema / properties / steps / items / type
```
Removed value: -"object"
```

First observedv0.1.0Sep 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: pure arithmetic with no I/O or external calls, 2-decimal rounding, unknown-method and missing-required-parameter both returning errors, and extra method parameters being accepted and ignored.

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-loaded with purpose, then routing, then per-method parameter requirements, then semantics — a sensible order. It is dense rather than tautological, though the single long paragraph slightly restates schema-level conventions (rate ranges, factor parity) that could be trimmed.

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

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 10-parameter, 1-required tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description supplies the missing glue: method-to-parameter mapping, defaults-apply behavior, error conditions, and the numeric conventions. Nothing essential to correct invocation is left unstated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the per-field text by grouping parameters per method (assembled_workforce vs key_person) and clarifying that only method is required while the rest are method-dependent defaults. It restates a few conventions (attrition_rate in [0,1], productivity_factor 1.0 = parity, decimals) that the schema already carries, keeping it from a 5.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific resource (human capital intangibles) and the two distinct valuation outputs (assembled-workforce replacement cost, key-person value), with the method parameter as the selector. It also names the sibling tools it is not (valuation_customer, valuation_technology), so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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 when-to-use ('Use for assembled workforce and key-person intangibles') and explicit alternatives for adjacent asset classes (customer-related → valuation_customer, technology → valuation_technology). It also spells out which method to pick via the parameter lists, leaving little to inference.

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

Deploy Server