gambit-mcp
Related Servers
Alternatives to gambit-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceProvides read-only MCP tools for market snapshots, position risk, order reconciliation, and daily report previews with deterministic financial calculations, evidence chains, and audit trails.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceProvides read-only access to OpenFolio data, enabling catalog, holdings, grid, and log queries without placing orders.438 npmMIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceProvides read-only investment research and audit tools for validating ETF snapshots, comparing ETF structures, and auditing backtest reports, while strictly excluding any order or trading capabilities.41MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceA read-only MCP server for EdgeDepth's market microstructure search engine, enabling users to query recorded crypto and TradFi perpetuals for market conditions, outcomes, and reproducibility-keyed evidence directly from MCP clients.101,033 npm3MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceRead-only MCP server for Blocksize market data discovery, pricing, documentation, and x402 endpoint lookup across crypto, equities, FX, and metals.71MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables MCP clients to securely access read-only Psagot Trade account and market information through authenticated HTTP endpoints. It exposes only read-only tools, with no trade-submission capabilities.-
TDQS
Scored across 1 tool
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusing it with another. The description clearly states exactly what it validates and what it does not, leaving no ambiguity.
The name 'gambit_check_contract' follows a clear verb_noun pattern and is readable. However, with only one tool, there is no broader naming convention to assess, and the redundant 'gambit_' prefix is slightly awkward.
A single tool feels thin for a server, even one with a narrow scope. It is usable for its stated purpose but provides agents with a very limited surface.
The server's stated purpose is limited to checking contract compatibility for a pre-production adapter, and the tool fully covers that purpose. Missing capabilities like data validation or backtesting are explicitly out of scope, so they are not true gaps, but the surface is still minimal.