gapup-mcp

realtime_data_streams

Read-only

High-frequency real-time market data for trading agents, market-making bots and fintech analysts. Returns FX ticks (bid/ask/spread), intraday OHLCV candles, crypto orderbook snapshots (depth 5-50), recent trades with VWAP, and sovereign bond yields. All sources are keyless public REST APIs (Binance, Coinbase, Kraken, OKX, open FX feeds, worldgovernmentbonds.com). Ultra-short cache: 10s for ticks/trades, 60s for orderbook. Use when an agent needs live market data as precise numeric inputs for trading logic, arbitrage detection, or portfolio valuation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mode`	Yes	Data stream type: fx_tick (latest FX bid/ask/mid/spread), fx_history_intraday (OHLCV candles), crypto_orderbook (order book snapshot), crypto_trades_recent (last 50 trades + VWAP), bond_yields (sovereign yield %)
`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.
`depth`	No	Orderbook depth (levels each side) for crypto_orderbook mode (default: 20)
`period`	No	Candle period for fx_history_intraday mode (default: 5m)
`symbol`	Yes	Market symbol. FX: EURUSD, GBPUSD, USDJPY. Crypto: BTCUSDT, ETHUSDT, BTC-USD. Bonds: US10Y, US2Y, DE10Y, FR10Y, UK10Y, JP10Y, IT10Y

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`symbol`	Yes
`fx_tick`	No
`sources`	Yes
`fx_history`	No
`bond_yields`	No
`crypto_trades`	No
`quality_score`	Yes
`crypto_orderbook`	No

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral details: sources are keyless public REST APIs, cache durations (10s for ticks/trades, 60s for orderbook), and the async parameter behavior (returns job_id if async=true). This exceeds what annotations alone provide.

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?

The description is a single paragraph that is informative and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It lists data types, sources, and cache durations efficiently. Could be slightly more concise by removing parenthetical lists, but overall it earns its sentences without excessive verbosity.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (has output schema: true), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers data types, sources, caching, async behavior, and use cases comprehensively. No significant gaps are present for a real-time data streaming tool.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description. The tool description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema but provides context for modes and symbols. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 provides high-frequency real-time market data for trading agents, market-making bots, and fintech analysts. It enumerates specific data types (FX ticks, OHLCV candles, crypto orderbook snapshots, trades with VWAP, bond yields) and sources, distinguishing it from sibling tools that cover other financial analysis tasks.

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 the tool: 'Use when an agent needs live market data as precise numeric inputs for trading logic, arbitrage detection, or portfolio valuation.' It provides context but does not mention when not to use it or list alternative tools, which would strengthen the guidance.

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?