gapup-mcp

trade_finance_eligibility

Read-onlyIdempotent

Evaluates trade finance eligibility for CFOs by analyzing counterparty risk and jurisdiction using World Bank and BIS data. Inputs include counterparty country code (ISO 3166-1 alpha-3) and industry sector. Returns risk scores, eligibility flags, and financing terms. Ideal for assessing letters of credit, export credit agency guarantees, and other trade finance instruments. Keywords: trade finance, counterparty risk, jurisdiction risk, letters of credit, ECA guarantees.

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.
`industrySector`	Yes
`annualTradeVolumeUSD`	No
`counterpartyCountryCode`	Yes
`counterpartyCreditRating`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`sources`	No
`warnings`	No
`eligibility`	No
`financingTerms`	No
`countryRiskScore`	No
`maxFinancingAmountUSD`	No
`recommendedInstruments`	No

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds that it returns 'risk scores, eligibility flags, and financing terms,' giving useful output context beyond 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?

The description is two sentences followed by keywords, which is reasonably concise. It front-loads the main action and audience, though the keywords list adds minor redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters (2 required) and an output schema exists, the description provides a good overview of purpose and output type. However, it omits descriptions for 3 optional parameters, which is a gap in completeness. The output schema partially fills return value understanding.

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 the 'async' parameter is described in schema). The description names 'counterparty country code (ISO 3166-1 alpha-3)' and 'industry sector' but fails to explain 'annualTradeVolumeUSD', 'counterpartyCreditRating', or the 'async' parameter. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate by detailing all parameters.

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 it evaluates trade finance eligibility for CFOs using specific data sources (World Bank, BIS). It lists inputs and outputs and distinguishes itself from numerous sibling tools by focusing on trade finance instruments like letters of credit and ECA guarantees.

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?

Description explicitly says 'Ideal for assessing letters of credit, export credit agency guarantees, and other trade finance instruments,' providing clear ideal use cases. However, it does not mention when not to use or suggest alternative tools for similar but different needs.

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?