get_treasury_yield_curveThe latest U.S. Treasury daily par yield curve, from 1 month to 30 years.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_treasury_yield_curve"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine domain context — 'par' yields (not zero-coupon), 'daily' frequency, and the fact that only the latest curve is returned — but says nothing about freshness lag or the response shape.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single short sentence that front-loads the resource and qualifies it with frequency, curve type and tenor range. Nothing is redundant and nothing could be cut without losing meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, this is nearly complete: source, frequency, curve type and tenor span are all stated. The only omission is that no output schema exists and the description does not describe the returned structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The stated tenor range (1 month to 30 years) usefully frames what the parameterless call returns.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Names a specific resource (U.S. Treasury daily par yield curve) and its coverage (1 month to 30 years), so an agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not distinguish itself from a broader sibling like get_economic_series, which is the only thing keeping it off a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The word 'latest' implies this is a current-snapshot tool with no historical querying and no parameters, which is implicit usage guidance. It never states when to prefer it over an alternative such as get_economic_series or when it is inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.