Industry-standard bond math for AI agents: price, yield, accrued interest, duration, yield-to-worst
Calculate price, yield, and accrued interest for Periodic bonds. Powered by the Standard Securities Calculation Methods - Fixed Income (https://api.sscmfi.com).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| givenType | Yes | Are you providing the clean Price or the Yield to find the other? | |
| couponRate | Yes | Annual coupon rate as a percentage (e.g., 5.0 for 5%). Use 0 for zero coupon bonds. | |
| givenValue | Yes | The numeric value of the Price (e.g. 98.75) or Yield (as a percent e.g. 4.25). | |
| callSchedule | No | Optional. List of discrete call dates and prices. AI Hint: The engine will automatically calculate the Yield-to-Worst using this schedule. | |
| maturityDate | Yes | The date the principal is due. Required format: MM/DD/YYYY (e.g., 01/05/2030). AI: Must use leading zeros and 4-digit years. (Ensure this is in the future relative to settlement). | |
| securityType | Yes | Crucial for math accuracy. Treasury: Usually uses Actual/Actual. Corporate/Agency/Municipal: Usually uses 30/360. CD: Usually uses Actual/360. | |
| settlementDate | No | Optional. Defaults to today. The date the money actually changes hands. Required format: MM/DD/YYYY (e.g., 07/04/2025). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation declares readOnlyHint=true, which covers the read-only nature. The description adds no additional behavioral details beyond the obvious calculation function. It does not mention error handling, default settlement behavior (though the schema covers it), output format, or any special handling like yield-to-worst when a call schedule is provided. Since the annotation already covers mutability, the description should provide more context for full transparency, but it falls short.
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?
The description is exceptionally concise and well-structured. It opens with the core function, then provides the source/power note. Both sentences are informative and free of redundancy. The structure is ideal for quick comprehension.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks context about optional parameters like settlementDate and callSchedule, and does not mention that a call schedule triggers yield-to-worst calculation (though the schema hint covers this). The description is adequate but not complete; it relies heavily on the schema for full understanding. A score of 3 reflects this partial completeness.
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 schema descriptions fully cover all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself does not add any parameter-specific semantics; it merely repeats the general purpose. No additional context beyond what the schema provides is included, so the score stays at the baseline.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('price, yield, and accrued interest for Periodic bonds'). It identifies the domain (fixed income) and the calculation type without ambiguity. The mention of 'Periodic bonds' distinguishes the input type, and since there are no sibling tools, there is no confusion.
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 description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but there are no sibling tools provided, so the primary function ('calculate') implicitly defines its applicability. It mentions the standard calculation method but does not provide conditions or exclusions. Given the absence of alternatives, a neutral score of 3 is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user or an account that owns the GitHub organization, then choose Claim with GitHub.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
High-precision finance & business calculations for AI agents — exact decimals, never floats.
Loan & mortgage calculator, compound interest, ROI, crypto prices, FX conversion for AI agents.
Precision math engine for AI agents. 203 exact methods. Zero hallucination.
Evidence-backed capital-change intelligence and sourced financial data for AI agents
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The tool has a clear, singular purpose for periodic bond calculations.
The single tool name follows a clear verb_noun pattern (calculate_bond_periodic). While there are no peers to compare, the name is systematic and descriptive.
One tool for a domain as broad as 'Bond Calculations' is too few. The server appears to handle only periodic bonds, omitting other bond types and related calculations.
The tool covers one specific calculation type (periodic bonds) but the server's domain implies a wider set of fixed-income calculations. Missing other bond types and financial metrics create significant gaps.
