gapup-mcp

ma_arbitrage_hunter

Read-onlyIdempotent

As a CFO, identify cross-border M&A arbitrage opportunities by comparing target company valuations across different jurisdictions. Inputs include target company ticker, primary and secondary jurisdictions, and valuation metrics. Outputs include valuation gaps, FX-adjusted multiples, and jurisdiction-specific premiums/discounts. Uses real-time ECB FX rates, Yahoo Finance market data, and SEC EDGAR filings for public companies. Ideal for quick assessment of potential arbitrage in M&A scenarios.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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.
`sector`	No	Industry sector for peer comparison (e.g., 'Technology')
`targetTicker`	Yes	Target company ticker symbol (e.g., 'AAPL')
`valuationMetric`	No	Valuation multiple to use for comparison
`primaryJurisdiction`	Yes	Primary jurisdiction for valuation comparison (e.g., 'US')
`secondaryJurisdiction`	No	Secondary jurisdiction for valuation comparison (e.g., 'DE')

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fxRate`	No
`status`	Yes
`sources`	No
`warnings`	No
`valuationGap`	No
`peerMultiples`	No
`targetCompany`	No
`primaryValuation`	No
`secondaryValuation`	No
`jurisdictionPremium`	No

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds value by disclosing data sources (ECB FX rates, Yahoo Finance, EDGAR) and output specifics (valuation gaps, FX-adjusted multiples). No contradictions.

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 four well-structured sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value: audience, inputs, outputs, data sources, and use case. No wasted words.

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 complexity of cross-border M&A arbitrage, the description covers purpose, inputs, outputs, and data sources. It is adequate for a quick assessment tool. Could mention prerequisites (e.g., company must be public) but not essential.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description summarizes inputs but adds no new detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 description clearly states the tool's purpose: identifying cross-border M&A arbitrage opportunities by comparing valuations across jurisdictions. It specifies the verb (identify), resource (arbitrage opportunities), and scope (cross-border). The purpose is distinct from sibling tools, though not explicitly differentiated.

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?

The description implies usage for quick assessment of M&A arbitrage, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or comparison with alternatives. It says 'Ideal for quick assessment' which gives some context but no exclusion criteria.

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?