gapup-mcp

working_capital_fx_hedge_optimizer

Read-onlyIdempotent

For CFOs managing multinational working capital, this tool analyzes real-time ECB and FRED foreign exchange rates to recommend optimal hedging strategies. Input base currency, target currencies, and working capital amounts to receive forward contract suggestions, natural hedge opportunities, and cost-benefit analysis of various hedging instruments (forwards, options, swaps). Outputs include hedge ratios, estimated cost savings, and risk reduction metrics.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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.
`baseCurrency`	Yes	ISO 4217 code of the company's functional currency (e.g., 'USD', 'EUR')
`riskAppetite`	No	Company's risk tolerance for currency fluctuations	balanced
`timeHorizonDays`	No	Planning horizon in days (default: 90)
`targetCurrencies`	Yes	ISO 4217 codes of currencies to hedge against (e.g., ['EUR', 'GBP', 'JPY'])
`workingCapitalAmounts`	Yes	Working capital amounts in each target currency (e.g., { EUR: 5000000, GBP: 3000000 })

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by specifying that the tool uses 'real-time ECB and FRED' data and outputs 'hedge ratios, estimated cost savings, and risk reduction metrics', which are behavioral details beyond the annotations. 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 two sentences, front-loading purpose and target user. Every sentence is essential, with no fluff. It efficiently conveys inputs, process, and outputs.

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 (6 params, 3 required, nested objects, output schema), the description covers core functionality well. It explains input purpose and output types. Could be more detailed on how strategies are generated, but the output schema likely fills that gap.

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 mentions the key inputs (base currency, target currencies, working capital amounts) and hints at risk appetite and time horizon (default 90), but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 that the tool 'analyzes real-time ECB and FRED foreign exchange rates to recommend optimal hedging strategies', with a specific verb ('analyzes... recommend') and resource ('working capital FX hedge'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'fx_rate' and 'treasury_optimizer' by focusing on multinational working capital hedging.

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 identifies the target user ('CFOs managing multinational working capital') and required inputs, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when a simple rate lookup suffices via 'fx_rate'). No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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?