startup-valuation

Comparable Multiples

valuation_comparables

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate market multiples (P/E, P/S, EV/EBITDA, EV/Revenue) or a regression-adjusted multiple from public comparables to value a startup. Use when comparables exist.

Instructions

Market multiples from comparables: P/E, P/S, EV/EBITDA, EV/Revenue, and a regression-adjusted multiple. Method selects the ratio. Use when public comparables exist; for pre-revenue or private startups use valuation_core. Parameters apply per method: pe_ratio needs market_cap + net_income; ps_ratio needs market_cap + revenue; ev_ebitda needs enterprise_value + ebitda; ev_revenue needs enterprise_value + revenue; regression_multiple needs intercept + growth_rate + growth_coefficient (plus optional maturity/stage/geography terms). Only method is required; all other parameters are method-dependent, so supply those the selected method names and omit the rest (defaults apply where defined). Rate and decimal inputs are fractions (0.10 = 10%); probability and weight lists are in [0,1] and sum to 1. Returns value, method, inputs, assumptions, chapter, formula_number and calculation steps; pure arithmetic — no I/O and no external calls — rounded to 2 decimals, with no auth or rate limits. An unknown method, or a missing method-required parameter, returns an error instead of a value.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`stage`	No	Company stage indicator.
`ebitda`	No	EBITDA, currency units.
`method`	Yes	Formula to apply. Options: pe_ratio = P/E = market cap / net income.; ps_ratio = P/S = market cap / revenue.; ev_ebitda = EV/EBITDA = enterprise value / EBITDA.; ev_revenue = EV/Revenue = enterprise value / revenue.; regression_multiple = Multiple = β0 + β1·g + β2·M + β3·S + β4·G.
`revenue`	No	Revenue for the period, currency units.
`geography`	No	Geography indicator.
`intercept`	No	Regression intercept β0 (base multiple).
`market_cap`	No	Market capitalisation, currency units.
`net_income`	No	Net income (earnings), currency units.
`growth_rate`	No	Revenue growth rate as a decimal (0.40 = 40%).
`market_maturity`	No	Market maturity indicator.
`enterprise_value`	No	Enterprise value (market cap + net debt), currency units.
`stage_coefficient`	No	Regression slope on stage.
`growth_coefficient`	No	Regression slope on growth (multiple points per unit growth).
`maturity_coefficient`	No	Regression slope on market maturity.
`geography_coefficient`	No	Regression slope on geography.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`error`	No	Error message when the call fails.
`steps`	No	Intermediate steps for traceability.
`value`	Yes	Computed valuation or metric.
`inputs`	No	Echo of the normalised inputs used.
`method`	No	Formula / method name that produced the result.
`chapter`	No	Source textbook chapter.
`assumptions`	No	Modelling assumptions applied.
`formula_number`	No	Source textbook formula number (e.g. '3.1').
`defaults_applied`	No	Optional parameters that were not supplied, so their documented defaults were used.

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"
+}

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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: pure arithmetic with no I/O or external calls, results rounded to 2 decimals, no auth or rate limits, and explicit error behavior for an unknown method or a missing method-required parameter. It also discloses unit conventions (fractions, 0.10 = 10%; probabilities/weights in [0,1] summing to 1).

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 units and return behavior — a logical order with no filler sentences. It is dense and slightly long, and the listing of return fields (value, method, inputs, assumptions, chapter, formula_number, calculation steps) partially duplicates the existing output schema, so it falls just short of maximal conciseness.

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 15-parameter, method-branching calculator with annotations and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: routing, required vs. method-dependent parameters, unit conventions, determinism/rounding, error semantics, and side-effect profile. Nothing material is left to inference.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: an explicit mapping of which parameters each method requires (pe_ratio needs market_cap + net_income; ev_revenue needs enterprise_value + revenue; regression_multiple needs intercept + growth_rate + growth_coefficient, plus optional maturity/stage/geography terms). That method-to-parameter dependency is the single most useful piece of invocation guidance and is absent from the flat schema.

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?

The opening sentence names the specific resource (market multiples from comparables) and enumerates the exact ratios produced (P/E, P/S, EV/EBITDA, EV/Revenue, regression-adjusted), with 'method selects the ratio' clarifying the tool's controlling input. It also names the sibling it is not (valuation_core) and the condition that routes elsewhere, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the 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 routing guidance: 'Use when public comparables exist; for pre-revenue or private startups use valuation_core.' It further states only `method` is required, that other params are method-dependent, and that callers should supply only those the selected method names and omit the rest. When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and the alternative are all present.

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

Deploy Server