Australian Consumer Data Right Product Data - CDR Explorer

Get Single Product Deposit Rates

get_product_deposit_rates

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the deposit rates for a banking product from a CDR data holder. Returns fixed, variable, bonus, introductory, and market-linked rates, including tiered rates and any applicability conditions. Use get_data_holders_by_category first to find a valid dataHolderBrandId. Leave depositRateType empty to return all deposit rates.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`productId`	Yes	The unique identifier of the product whose features should be retrieved
`depositRateType`	No	Filter by deposit rate type (e.g. FIXED, VARIABLE). Leave empty for all types.
`dataHolderBrandId`	Yes	The unique brand identifier of the Data Holder, as returned by GetDataHoldersByCategory

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds useful return behavior: it lists the rate categories returned, tiered rates, applicability conditions, and the default all-rates behavior when depositRateType is left empty. It omits FLOATING and BUNDLE_BONUS from the enumeration, though those are visible in the schema enum.

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?

Three focused sentences front-load the tool's purpose, then give the prerequisite and default-filter behavior. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a read-only, schema-rich tool, the description covers what is returned, the default filter behavior, and the prerequisite data holder lookup. It is not quite exhaustive because it does not mention the two omitted enum rate types or error/pagination behavior, but those are not critical for selecting and invoking this simple 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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description mostly repeats the depositRateType empty-for-all behavior and the dataHolderBrandId prerequisite rather than adding new parameter semantics, leaving it at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('deposit rates'), scope ('for a banking product from a CDR data holder'), and output content (rate types plus tiering/conditions). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling rate tools such as get_product_lending_rates.

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?

It gives an explicit prerequisite: call get_data_holders_by_category first to obtain a valid dataHolderBrandId, and explains how the depositRateType filter behaves. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative siblings like get_product_lending_rates, but the deposit-rate scope makes the intended use clear.

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

All Australian Consumer Data Right Product Data - CDR Explorer 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

A3.5/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Tools are generally distinct in purpose (data holders, categories, constraints, etc.), but significant overlap exists between singular and plural variants (e.g., get_product_constraints vs get_products_constraints) and between generic and filtered variants (get_product_constraints vs get_product_constraints_by_type). Although descriptions clarify the differences, the names are too similar, leading to potential misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming follows a consistent 'get_<resource>_<detail>' pattern with snake_case. However, there is an inconsistency between singular ('product') and plural ('products') prefixes, and the inclusion of 'hello' breaks the pattern entirely. Overall, the pattern is recognizable but not uniform.

Tool Count3/5

With 17 tools, the count is on the higher side for a specialized data server. Several tools are essentially duplicates (singular vs. plural) that could be merged with a parameter. The 'hello' tool adds no value. The number of tools feels slightly bloated for the apparent domain, but not excessively so.

Completeness2/5

The tool set focuses on retrieving specific attributes (constraints, fees, features) for known product IDs, but lacks any tool to list or search for products. Without get_products or similar, an agent cannot discover product IDs needed to use the other tools, creating a critical workflow gap. Minor operations like product creation or update are not expected, but basic product listing is missing.

Resources

Need Help?