gapup-mcp

fx_rate

Read-only

Get the current or historical foreign-exchange rate for any currency pair — the exact exchange rate, FX rate or conversion rate an agent needs to convert a currency amount or feed a finance, trading, invoicing or pricing workflow. Covers EUR/USD, USD/JPY, GBP/EUR and every ISO-4217 currency pair. Returns the latest spot rate, or a historical rate by date. Use when a workflow needs a precise live or past currency exchange rate, or to convert money between two currencies. Source: European Central Bank reference rates via Frankfurter. Inputs: from/to ISO-4217 currency codes, optional date (YYYY-MM-DD).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	Yes	Quote currency, ISO-4217 (e.g. USD)
`date`	No	Optional YYYY-MM-DD for a historical rate
`from`	Yes	Base currency, ISO-4217 (e.g. EUR)
`async`	No	If true, returns a job_id immediately (<200ms) instead of waiting for the result. Poll the result with job_result(job_id). Use for slow tools to avoid client timeouts.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to`	Yes
`from`	Yes
`rate`	Yes
`as_of`	Yes
`source`	Yes
`source_url`	No

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint as true. The description adds context: returns spot rate or historical rate, source is ECB via Frankfurter, and date format. It does not contradict annotations. It adds value beyond annotations by explaining the data source and output specifics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single but well-structured paragraph. It front-loads the main purpose, then adds scope, use case, source, and inputs. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (so return values are covered) and simple parameters, the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, usage, source, and input details. It could be more precise about ECB rate limitations (e.g., base currency EUR), but overall it is informative enough.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces 'from/to ISO-4217 currency codes' and 'optional date (YYYY-MM-DD)' but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. The async parameter is not mentioned in the description, missing an opportunity to clarify its use.

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?

The description clearly states the tool gets current or historical foreign-exchange rates for any ISO-4217 currency pair. It specifies the verb (get) and resource (rate) and provides examples. While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like supply_chain_fx_exposure_dashboard, the purpose is specific and distinct enough.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly states when to use: 'Use when a workflow needs a precise live or past currency exchange rate, or to convert money between two currencies.' This gives clear context. It does not provide when-not-to-use or alternatives, but given the sibling list has no direct replacement, this is adequate.

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

All gapup-mcp tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

With 271 tools, many have overlapping purposes (e.g., multiple competitor intel tools, multiple financial modelers, multiple ESG auditors). Detailed descriptions help slightly, but the sheer volume creates confusion. Agents would struggle to select the right tool among many similar options.

Naming Consistency1/5

Tool names are wildly inconsistent: mix of English and French, snake_case and short phrases, some very generic (process, run, execute equivalents). No discernible naming convention (e.g., abm_architect vs. boundary_control vs. bp_narratif). This makes it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

271 tools is far beyond typical well-scoped servers (3-15). This indicates an unfocused, over-bloated tool surface. Even for a general business intelligence server, this number is excessive and violates the principle of each tool earning its place.

Completeness2/5

Despite the large count, coverage feels scattered. Some domains (e.g., content, competitive intel) have many tools, while others (e.g., supply chain, HR) have gaps. The set lacks a coherent scope; it seems like a dump of many separate tool collections rather than a complete, curated surface.

Resources

Need Help?