Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-knowledge

by io.github.getgapup

syndicated_loan_pricing_benchmark

Read-onlyIdempotent

Provides CFOs with peer benchmarking for syndicated loan pricing by comparing current loan terms against market data from Tradeweb and FRED. Inputs include loan amount, tenor, credit rating, and currency. Outputs structured pricing benchmarks with spread, yield, and fee comparisons. Ideal for quick validation of loan competitiveness or negotiation preparation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
asyncNoIf 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.
tenorYesLoan tenor (e.g., '5Y', '3Y')
regionNoRegion for benchmarking (e.g., 'US', 'EU')
currencyYesCurrency code (e.g., 'USD', 'EUR')
loanAmountYesLoan amount in millions
creditRatingYesBorrower credit rating (e.g., 'BBB', 'BB+')

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusYes
sourcesNo
warningsNo
benchmarksNo

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
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 useful context about data sources and output types without contradicting annotations. It does not discuss side effects or auth needs but these are implied to be safe.

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?

Description is three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then inputs/outputs, then use case. Every sentence adds value; no fluff.

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?

Has output schema so return values are documented. Description covers what the tool does, inputs, outputs, and use case. Could add more detail on interpreting benchmarks, but overall complete for a read-only 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 coverage is 100%, so the description doesn't need to add much. It mentions input categories (loan amount, tenor, etc.) but no additional detail beyond the schema. Baseline score of 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 it provides peer benchmarking for syndicated loan pricing, names specific data sources (Tradeweb, FRED), and lists outputs (spread, yield, fee comparisons). It is distinct from sibling tools like competitor_pricing_radar.

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?

Explicitly states 'Ideal for quick validation of loan competitiveness or negotiation preparation,' providing clear use context. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All mcp-knowledge toolsInspect
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

C2.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially in competitive intelligence, ESG, and risk assessment. For example, there are multiple tools for competitor analysis (competitive_deep_dive, competitor_intel, competitor_moves, etc.) with unclear boundaries. Agents would struggle to select the correct tool without deep understanding of subtle differences.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are a mix of English and French, and follow no consistent pattern. Some use snake_case (e.g., abm_architect, action_plan_esg), while others are verb-focused (e.g., content_catalog, fx_rate). The lack of a uniform naming convention makes it hard for agents to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

With 271 tools, the server is excessively large. Even for a broad knowledge domain, this number of tools makes discovery and selection inefficient. Typical coherent servers have 3-15 tools; this has an order of magnitude more, indicating poor scoping.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers many domains (compliance, finance, marketing, HR, etc.), but the coverage is uneven due to redundancy. Key areas have multiple overlapping tools, while some sub-domains may still have gaps. Overall, the surface is broad but not well-curated.

Resources