gapup-mcp

repo_rate_arbitrage_scanner

Read-onlyIdempotent

Scans for arbitrage opportunities between repo rates (ECB) and short-term funding markets (Treasury Direct). Designed for CFOs to identify cost-effective funding strategies. Inputs include optional date ranges and currency filters. Outputs structured arbitrage opportunities with rate differentials and confidence scores.

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.
`endDate`	No
`currency`	No
`startDate`	No
`minDifferential`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`sources`	No
`warnings`	No
`opportunities`	No

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that outputs are structured arbitrage opportunities with rate differentials and confidence scores, which is useful but not critical. There is no contradiction with annotations. The description provides moderate additional context beyond the annotations.

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 consists of two sentences: the first clearly states the purpose, and the second adds the target audience and output. There is no unnecessary information, and the key points are front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 5 optional parameters, and the description mentions that inputs include optional date ranges and currency filters, but does not cover all parameters (e.g., minDifferential, async). Since an output schema exists, return values are not needed in the description. However, the description is incomplete regarding full parameter semantics and async behavior, which is partially covered by the schema. Overall, it is adequate but has gaps.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 20% (only 'async' has a description). The description mentions 'optional date ranges and currency filters' but does not explain 'minDifferential' or the async behavior detail (though schema covers async). Given the low coverage, the description should compensate by explaining more parameters, but it only glosses over two categories, leaving the other parameters' semantics unclear.

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 scans for arbitrage opportunities between repo rates (ECB) and short-term funding markets (Treasury Direct). The verb 'scans for' and the specific resource (arbitrage opportunities) are precise. Among many sibling tools, this one is distinct due to its focus on repo rates and Treasury Direct, making it easy to differentiate.

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 indicates the tool is designed for CFOs to identify cost-effective funding strategies, implying when to use it. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like 'tariff_arbitrage_finder' or 'ma_arbitrage_hunter', which exist among siblings. The usage context is implied but lacks exclusions.

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?