Treasury securities auction calendar — upcoming auctions in the next N days.
Args: security_type: "all", "Bill", "Note", "Bond", "TIPS", "FRN", or "CMB" days_ahead: how many days of upcoming auctions to return (default 30, max ~180)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days_ahead | No | ||
| security_type | No | all |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which cover the safety profile. The description adds parameter details but no additional behavioral traits like caching or pagination. Since annotations carry the burden, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
Two clear sentences plus a parameter list. No wasted words. The main 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?
Given no output schema, the description could mention what the returned data contains (e.g., dates, details). But for a simple calendar tool, parameter info is sufficient. Completeness is adequate but not exceptional.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists allowed values for security_type and specifies default and max for days_ahead, adding meaning beyond the schema's type and default fields.
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 it retrieves an auction calendar of upcoming treasury securities, with specific parameters. The title in annotations further clarifies. Sibling tools are distinct (auction results, yield curve, etc.), so 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 implies usage for viewing upcoming auctions, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. However, sibling tool names are sufficiently different to indicate context.
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.