OptimaYield free bank-treasury tools

Deposit pricing decision: Defend, Match, or Lead

deposit_pricing_decision

Read-onlyIdempotent

Price holding, matching, or beating the market rate on a bank's deposits: annual cost, balances at risk, breakeven retention, and sensitivity. Free; computed from FFIEC filings; results state whether each number is filed, derived, or assumed.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`category`	No	Which filed deposit category the pricing decision applies to. Balances and current cost come from the bank's Call Report.	savings
`certificate`	Yes	FDIC certificate number of the bank.
`leadPremiumBp`	No	How far above the market rate the Lead option prices, in basis points. A starting value to replace with your own.
`marketRatePercent`	No	The rate competitors pay for this product. Leave empty to use the FDIC national average for the product as a reference; that average is usually well below competitive offers, so enter your own market rate when you have one.
`replacementSpreadBp`	No	What it costs, above the Fed funds rate, to replace balances that leave, in basis points.
`repricedSharePercent`	No	The part of the category balance whose rate changes under Match or Lead. For time deposits, use the share maturing soon (see the maturity wall calculator).
`baselineRunoffPercent`	No	The share of the repriced balances that leaves within a year even when your rate matches the market. Your assumption, not a filed figure; a starting value to replace.
`runoffPerPointPercent`	No	The additional share of balances lost for every 100 basis points your rate sits below the market, and recovered for every 100bp above it. This is the elasticity assumption that drives the decision; the sensitivity table shows how the answer changes with it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses that the tool is free, draws on FFIEC filings, and labels each output as filed, derived, or assumed. That provenance detail is meaningful behavioral context, though it does not cover output shape or performance characteristics.

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 dense sentences front-load the core decision and the outputs, with no redundant or filler wording. Every clause contributes information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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 an eight-parameter financial model with no output schema, the description gives the agent enough to understand what the tool produces and how trustworthy each number is. It could say more about the defend/match/lead comparison or return structure, but the schema and annotations cover the remaining ground.

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 the schema already documents all eight parameters thoroughly, including defaults, ranges, and units. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource — pricing deposits by holding, matching, or beating the market rate — and names the concrete outputs (annual cost, balances at risk, breakeven retention, sensitivity). An agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like nim_rate_shock or margin_capture without opening the schema.

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?

The description clearly frames the use case as a deposit pricing decision, which tells the agent when the tool applies. It does not explicitly exclude other uses or name sibling alternatives, but the context is unambiguous.

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

All OptimaYield free bank-treasury tools tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?