Skip to main content
Glama

Genexxis paid agent tools (x402)

yields_rate

Government yield at any tenor (e.g. 18M, 7Y, 12Y) for US, EA or MA, linearly interpolated between published points, with 1-month and 1-year-ago values. Price: $0.005 USDC per call, paid with x402 on Base.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "country": "<country>",
      "tenor": "<tenor>"
    },
    "name": "yields_rate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tenorYesTenor like 3M, 18M, 7Y or a number of years
countryYesUS, EA or MA

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses interpolation behavior, that results include 1-month and 1-year-ago values, and crucially that each call costs $0.005 USDC via x402 on Base. It does not cover error behavior or rate limits, but the payment and computation traits are unusual and important to surface.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core operation, followed by the interpolation detail and cost. No padding or redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter data lookup with no output schema, the description covers what is computed, what historical values are included, and the payment mechanism. It is nearly complete, with only minor gaps around output shape and failure modes.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description's tenor examples reinforce but do not add meaning beyond the schema, and it does not clarify country code semantics further. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific resource and operation: government yield at any tenor for US, EA or MA, with linear interpolation. It clearly distinguishes an interpolated arbitrary-tenor lookup from a published curve, though it does not explicitly name siblings like yields_curve or yields_spreads.

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 mention of 'any tenor' and interpolation implies when this is useful (non-standard tenors), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over yields_curve or yields_spreads. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources