Intangible Asset Valuation

Human Capital

valuation_human_capital

Read-onlyIdempotent

Determine human capital intangible value: compute assembled workforce replacement cost or key-person value from revenue contribution and departure risk.

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; other parameters are method-dependent, so supply those named for the selected method and omit the rest (documented defaults apply where defined). Pure arithmetic: no I/O and no external calls, and numeric results are returned rounded to 2 decimals. Parameters belonging to other methods of this tool are accepted and ignored. Supplying an unknown method, or leaving unset a parameter that the chosen method requires, 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.
`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).
`formula_reference`	No	Mathematical formula or reference applied.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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 cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description adds material context they cannot: pure arithmetic with no I/O or external calls, results rounded to 2 decimals, cross-method parameters are silently ignored, and invalid input returns an error rather than a value. This is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs to predict outcomes.

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 alternatives then per-method requirements, and every sentence carries information. It is dense and long, but with 10 parameters and two methods the length is largely earned; a slightly tighter phrasing could reduce it further.

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 two-method computational tool with 10 params and an output schema, the description covers selection, per-method inputs, error behavior, and result formatting. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Although schema coverage is already 100%, the description adds method-to-parameter mapping (which of the 10 params each method requires) and semantic constraints (attrition_rate in [0,1], productivity_factor 1.0 = parity), plus the key rule that only method is required and the rest are method-dependent.

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 computations (assembled-workforce replacement cost, key-person value), then explicitly disambiguates from siblings valuation_customer and valuation_technology. An agent can tell exactly what this tool computes 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions ('Use for assembled workforce and key-person intangibles') plus named alternatives for adjacent asset classes. It goes further by stating that other methods' parameters are accepted-and-ignored and that unknown methods or missing required params error out.

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

Deploy Server