Tesouro em Foco

live_quotes_lookup

Read-onlyIdempotent

Looks up live quotes for Tesouro Direto bonds (sourced from the TD website, not STN CSV). Use for current indications only.

Each query requires productId plus exactly one year field — maturityYear is required for all products except renda-mais/educa-mais; for renda-mais/educa-mais use maturityYear (calendar maturity year) OR conversionYear (label year on the bond name, e.g. 2027 for 'Educa+ 2027') — never both. Omitting the year field will error.

Each result has optional investorBuy and investorSell objects with { rate, price } — the two sides are independent, so one may be present without the other. When found is true there is also an optional fetchedAt — ISO-8601 UTC from the last site scrape.

Field semantics:

investorBuy — investor PURCHASE side: rate and price at which the investor buys from the Treasury.
investorSell — investor SELL-BACK side: rate and price at which the investor sells back to the Treasury. Normally investorSell.rate > investorBuy.rate.

Always consult catalog_list to check if the bond is currently available for purchase or sale by Tesouro Direto.

found: true means at least one of investorBuy / investorSell is present — each side may be absent independently, so always check which one came back (if you need a single rate and investorBuy is missing, use investorSell). found: false means neither side is present. Possible causes: outside BRT market hours (nights/weekends/holidays), the bond is not currently offered by Tesouro Direto, the year identifier does not match an active offering, or the stored quotes are invalid. When found is false fall back to price_history_lookup / price_history_series for the latest official STN rate.

Rates are decimal fraction strings (e.g. '0.0753' = 7.53% a.a.) — same convention as price_history_* and simulate_bond.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`queries`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`results`	Yes

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds rich behavioral details: the independence of investorBuy/investorSell, the meaning of found true/false with potential causes, and the decimal fraction string convention. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Although lengthy, the description is well-structured into paragraphs and field semantics, with bold emphasis on key constraints. Every sentence provides operational guidance; no filler.

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?

For a tool with nested query objects, optional result fields, and multiple failure modes, the description covers parameters, output semantics, error causes, and fallbacks. The presence of an output schema relieves the need to document return structure in detail, but the description still adds essential context for agents.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The schema only shows a queries array with minimal sub-field descriptions; the description explains the critical rule of exactly one year field, the maturityYear vs conversionYear distinction, and the requirement of productId. It also clarifies rate/price format, adding semantics beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Looks up live quotes for Tesouro Direto bonds', explicitly contrasting with STN CSV sources used by sibling tools like price_history_lookup. This clearly distinguishes live_quotes_lookup from its siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states when to use: 'Use for current indications only' and instructs to always consult catalog_list to verify availability, plus explicit fallback to price_history_lookup / price_history_series when found is false. This provides clear context and names alternatives.

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

All Tesouro em Foco tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: catalog_list for discovery, live_quotes_lookup for real-time quotes, price_history_lookup for specific-date lookups, price_history_series for time series, price_history_ranking for cross-bond comparisons, and simulate_* for simulations. The overlap among the four quote/history tools is real but mitigated by detailed descriptions clarifying when each should be used.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use lowercase snake_case with descriptive words, but the pattern is slightly mixed: catalog_list, live_quotes_lookup, and price_history_* follow an object+verb structure, while simulate_bond and simulate_redemption follow a verb+object structure. Though not perfectly uniform, the naming remains predictable and readable.

Tool Count5/5

With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for its domain—covering catalog discovery, live and historical quotes, rankings, indicators, and simulations. No tool feels redundant or extraneous, and the count is well within the ideal 3-15 range.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the core lifecycle: discover bonds, fetch live/historical rates, simulate pricing, and simulate redemption with tax details. A minor gap is that indicator_history currently supports only 'selic-target' despite implying broader coverage, but this does not undermine the server's primary purpose.

Resources

Need Help?