Skip to main content
Glama

Oxford Ledge

by com.oxfordledge
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Bond Directory Screen

ol_bond_directory_screen
Read-only

Screen the corporate-bond browse directory by issuer name, grade (IG or HY), and optional coupon and maturity bands. Returns {summary, count, total_matching, bonds}; each bond is {key, issuer_name, coupon (percent number), coupon_type, maturity_date, grade, source_etf}. REFERENCE DATA ONLY -- no price, yield, spread or trade activity, and no security identifier. grade is the coarse SOURCE BUCKET (IG=LQD, HY=HYG), NOT a credit rating. limit default 25, hard cap 100. NOTE ON PROVENANCE: the directory is sourced from the LQD (investment-grade) and HYG (high-yield) ETF holdings. Its ingest-source redistribution posture is unresolved (Oxford Ledge legal review, 2026-07-07), so this is a FIRST-PARTY-only tool and is off the third-party redistribution surface until cleared. FREE. Needs a free Oxford Ledge API key that the client's operator configures.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gradeNoSource bucket: 'IG' (LQD universe) or 'HY' (HYG universe), case-insensitive. Not a rating.
limitNoMax bonds to return (default 25, hard cap 100).
issuerNoIssuer-name substring to match (optional). Identifier lookups are not supported.
offsetNoPagination offset. Not accepted with a coupon/maturity band (a band reads the first 200 issuer/grade matches; there is no banded page to offset into).
coupon_maxNoMaximum coupon percent, applied in-tool over the fetched page (optional).
coupon_minNoMinimum coupon percent, applied in-tool over the fetched page (optional).
maturity_afterNoOnly bonds maturing on/after this ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD), optional.
maturity_beforeNoOnly bonds maturing on/before this ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD), optional.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / grade / description
      Previous value: -"Source bucket: 'IG' (LQD universe) or 'HY' (HYG universe). Not a rating."New value: +"Source bucket: 'IG' (LQD universe) or 'HY' (HYG universe), case-insensitive. Not a rating."
    • addedInput schema / properties / grade / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "IG",
+  "HY"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / offset / description
      Previous value: -"Pagination offset (used only when no coupon/maturity band is set)."New value: +"Pagination offset. Not accepted with a coupon/maturity band (a band reads the first 200 issuer/grade matches; there is no banded page to offset into)."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint it discloses a great deal: the grade field is a source bucket not a rating, coupon bands are applied in-tool over a fetched page, there is a hard cap of 100, auth requires a free first-party API key, and a provenance/redistribution caveat. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose and return shape, and nearly every sentence carries operational value. The provenance/legal-review clause is long, but it conveys a material constraint for agent use, so it largely earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, yet the description spells out the return envelope ({summary, count, total_matching, bonds}) and each bond field. Combined with auth, limits, and filter semantics, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is already 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real interpretive value: it clarifies grade is a bucket not a credit rating, restates the 25/100 limit behavior, and notes coupon filters operate over the fetched page. It adds meaning beyond the schema rather than repeating it.

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?

States a specific verb ('Screen') and resource (corporate-bond browse directory), then enumerates the filterable facets (issuer, grade, coupon, maturity). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling screeners like ol_fundamentals_screen or ol_maturity_wall.

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?

Clearly scopes what the tool is for (reference-data screening) and explicitly excludes what it cannot do ('no price, yield, spread or trade activity, and no security identifier'). It does not name an alternative tool for those excluded needs, so it falls short of the top mark.

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

All Oxford Ledge toolsInspect
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