Full US Treasury par yield curve (1mo, 2mo, 3mo, 4mo, 6mo, 1y, 2y, 3y, 5y, 7y, 10y, 20y, 30y) for a date.
Args: date: ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD). Defaults to most recent business day on or before today.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds context about the data being a 'par yield curve' for specific maturities and explains default date behavior. No contradictions.
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 a single sentence followed by an Args block, with no wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded.
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?
The tool has no output schema, but the description lists maturities, implying the return will include those points. It could mention the return format (yields), but the name 'yield curve' makes it reasonably clear.
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 provides no description for the 'date' parameter (0% coverage). The description explains it expects ISO date format and defaults to the most recent business day, adding critical meaning.
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 explicitly states 'Full US Treasury par yield curve' and lists all maturities. It clearly distinguishes from siblings which cover auctions, FRED series, macro dashboard, and upcoming auctions.
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 implies usage for yield curve data but does not explicitly state when to use or not use sibling tools. However, siblings are sufficiently different in domain, making implicit differentiation adequate.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes: auction results vs upcoming auctions, yield curve vs dashboard snapshot. However, get_fred_series can retrieve Treasury yields and auction-related data, overlapping with the other specialized tools, causing minor ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent 'get_' prefix with snake_case nouns describing the data (e.g., get_auction_results, get_treasury_yield_curve). No deviations or mixed conventions.
Five tools is well-suited for this domain: two for auctions (past and future), one for yield curves, one for a macro dashboard, and one generic FRED series fetcher. The scope is focused and each tool serves a clear purpose.
The tool set covers core macro and Treasury data operations: historical auction results, upcoming auctions, yield curves, a combined dashboard, and the ability to fetch any FRED series. No obvious gaps exist for read-only data retrieval.