Intangible Asset Valuation

Technology Assets

valuation_technology

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculates intangible asset values for developed technology, software, data assets, and platforms using method-specific cost, income, or network-effect formulas.

Instructions

Technology assets: developed technology under life-cycle risk, software under cost and income, data assets with a quality adjustment, and platforms with network effects. Method selects the formula. Use for developed technology, software, data, and platform intangibles; developed_technology and software blend cost and income evidence. For patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets use valuation_ip; for customer relationships use valuation_customer. Per method: developed_technology needs rd_costs + life_cycle_stage + competitive_advantage + discount_rate + cash_flow_projections; software needs development_cost + maintenance_cost + user_base + revenue_model + useful_life + discount_rate; data_asset needs acquisition_cost + quality_score + revenue_contribution + useful_life + discount_rate; platform needs network_size + network_effects_coefficient + revenue_per_user + growth_rate + discount_rate. cash_flow_projections for developed_technology run over the remaining useful life. 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: developed_technology = Cost and income value adjusted for life-cycle stage.; software = Software value from development, maintenance, and revenue.; data_asset = Quality-adjusted revenue contribution plus acquisition cost.; platform = Network-effect revenue grown and discounted.
`rd_costs`	No	Cumulative research and development costs, in currency units.
`user_base`	No	Number of users (integer ≥ 0).
`growth_rate`	No	Per-period growth rate as a decimal (0.03 = 3%).
`useful_life`	No	Useful life in years n (integer ≥ 1).
`network_size`	No	Number of network participants (integer ≥ 0).
`discount_rate`	No	Per-period discount rate as a decimal (0.10 = 10%).
`quality_score`	No	Data quality score, in [0,1].
`revenue_model`	No	Revenue model, e.g. {"subscription_price": 20, "paying_users": 10000}.
`acquisition_cost`	No	Cost to acquire the data, in currency units.
`development_cost`	No	Development or acquisition cost, in currency units.
`life_cycle_stage`	No	Life-cycle stage, e.g. "growth", "mature", "decline".
`maintenance_cost`	No	Annual maintenance cost, in currency units.
`revenue_per_user`	No	Revenue per user, in currency units.
`revenue_contribution`	No	Annual revenue contribution, in currency units.
`cash_flow_projections`	No	Projected after-tax cash flows per period t=1..n, in currency units.
`competitive_advantage`	No	Years of competitive advantage (≥ 0).
`network_effects_coefficient`	No	Network-effects coefficient scaling revenue with network size (typically 0.5–2.0).

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"
+}

Changed5 schema fields changedv2.0.1Oct 1, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / competitive_advantage / description

Previous value: -"Years of competitive advantage."New value: +"Years of competitive advantage (≥ 0)."

changedInput schema / properties / network_effects_coefficient / description

Previous value: -"Network-effects coefficient scaling revenue with network size."New value: +"Network-effects coefficient scaling revenue with network size (typically 0.5–2.0)."

changedInput schema / properties / network_size / description

Previous value: -"Number of network participants."New value: +"Number of network participants (integer ≥ 0)."

changedInput schema / properties / useful_life / description

Previous value: -"Useful life in years n."New value: +"Useful life in years n (integer ≥ 1)."

changedInput schema / properties / user_base / description

Previous value: -"Number of users."New value: +"Number of users (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

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this read-only, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, but the description adds substantially more: it is pure arithmetic with no I/O or external calls, results are rounded to 2 decimals, cross-method parameters are accepted and silently ignored, and an unknown method or missing method-required parameter returns an error rather than a value. That error/ignored-parameter contract is exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs and cannot get from annotations.

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?

The opening sentence and the sibling-routing sentence are well front-loaded, and the dense per-method parameter block earns its length given 18 parameters and 4 formulas. It is borderline long, but no sentence is filler; the slight deduction is for the run-on density of the per-method list.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers everything else an agent needs: scope, alternatives, per-method required inputs, unit conventions, error behavior, and no-side-effect guarantees. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter is described, but the description goes beyond it by mapping which parameters each method requires (e.g. developed_technology needs rd_costs + life_cycle_stage + competitive_advantage + discount_rate + cash_flow_projections) — information the flat schema cannot express. It also clarifies the decimal convention and that only 'method' is required while the rest are method-dependent and should otherwise be omitted.

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 domain (technology asset valuation) and enumerates exactly which intangible types it covers — developed technology, software, data assets, platforms — with the distinct methods each uses. It also explicitly names the sibling tools it is not for (valuation_ip, valuation_customer), so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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 developed technology, software, data, and platform intangibles') and when-not ('For patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets use valuation_ip; for customer relationships use valuation_customer'). Routing between alternatives is fully specified.

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

Deploy Server