Conecto

Rank the most active acquirers

mergers_acquirers

Read-onlyIdempotent

The companies that bought most often among the deals matching words, countries and dates, from merger authorities and SEC filings, ranked by how many deals they made, with their latest deal ids. Only deals whose source names the acquirer count; news never does. Costs $0.01 per acquirer returned; nothing if none are found.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "mergers_acquirers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	No	Words that must all appear in a deal's title, activities or sector.
`limit`	No
`since`	No
`until`	No
`sources`	No
`countries`	No	Two-letter codes: the authority's country (EU for the Commission) or a party's.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new disclosure: the billing model ($0.01 per acquirer returned, nothing when none found) and the counting rule that news-sourced deals are excluded. That is real behavioral context an agent cannot get from the schema or 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the opening clause, and the trailing sentences on source-counting and per-acquirer pricing each carry load-bearing information. The main sentence is long and comma-chained, which costs a little readability but no content is wasted.

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?

For a 6-parameter, zero-required, no-output-schema tool this covers the essentials: filter semantics, ranking basis, returned fields (latest deal ids), and cost including the empty-result case. Remaining gaps are minor — no reporting on result ordering ties or max-result behavior from limit.

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 only 33% (only text and countries are documented), but the description maps almost every filter: words (text), countries, dates (since/until), and the authority/SEC provenance behind the sources enum. The gap is limit, whose default/ceiling behavior is left entirely to the schema's numeric bounds.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a precise verb and resource: ranks companies by number of deals, scoped to deals matching words/countries/dates, drawn from merger authorities and SEC filings, returning an acquirer ranking with latest deal ids. That output shape distinguishes it functionally from a deal-listing sibling like mergers_search, though no sibling is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the ranking/aggregation framing rather than stated: an agent can infer this is for 'who acquires most often' rather than 'find a deal'. The one explicit exclusion ('only deals whose source names the acquirer count; news never does') governs counting semantics, not tool selection, and no alternative is pointed to.

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

All Conecto tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?