Skip to main content
Glama

reference-data

by dev.afriref

settlement_date

PAID ($0.05). Settlement/value date: the date n business days after a trade date, computed on the INTERSECTION of the calendars you name, with a per-day trail showing every skipped day and why, on which calendar. Supply business_days for a cycle you are trading under, or market + instrument_class to have a settlement cycle applied that we cite to its primary source (e.g. US equities T+1 under 17 CFR 240.15c6-1(a); UK gilts T+1 by DMO convention, which is NOT the T+2 equity cycle; Japan equities T+2 but JGBs T+1). Calendars are NATIONAL statutory holiday calendars with researched statutory weekend rules (Israel Saturday-only, Gulf Friday+Saturday, India Sundays plus the 2nd and 4th Saturday), NOT CSD or exchange calendars — each response states the basis and any known divergence. Use 'eu.t2' for the euro cash leg. We refuse FREE rather than guess: beyond published calendar coverage, no cited cycle for the instrument (government bonds never inherit an equity cycle), a cycle not in force on the trade date, or FX spot value dates. Free companion: GET /settlement-conventions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
marketNoISO country of the market whose cited cycle should apply (with instrument_class)
api_keyNoAPI key (bypasses x402; metered for invoicing)
calendarsYesCalendar ids to intersect: two-letter ISO country codes, plus 'eu.t2' for the euro cash leg
trade_dateYesTrade/reference date, YYYY-MM-DD. Day 0: never counted, never rolled.
business_daysNoThe offset you are trading under (T+n)
instrument_classNoInstrument class — a government bond never inherits an equity cycle

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, but description fully discloses paid cost ($0.05), refuse behavior, calendar research methodology, and output trail. No contradiction.

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?

Description is lengthy but every sentence adds value. Structured logically with cost, purpose, usage examples, and limitations. Minor verbosity but warranted for complexity.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all main use cases, edge cases, refusals, and even points to supplementary resources. Very complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, yet description adds crucial context like the distinction between business_days and market+instrument_class, calendar ID meanings ('eu.t2'), and trade_date semantics ('Day 0 never counted').

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 clearly states the tool computes settlement/value dates using calendar intersection. It distinguishes from sibling tools like count_working_days and get_public_holidays by specifying settlement date logic and paid nature.

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?

Explicitly explains when to supply business_days vs market+instrument_class, how calendars are selected, and what conditions cause refusals. Mentions free companion endpoint for conventions.

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

All reference-data toolsInspect
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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each of the 11 tools addresses a clearly distinct operation: compliance checking, income tax, payroll, VAT, working days, holidays, series queries (current/history/snapshot/catalog), and settlement date. Even within the tax and calendar families, the descriptions precisely delineate boundaries, so there is no realistic risk of an agent selecting the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority of tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (check_, compute_, get_, list_, count_). The only deviation is settlement_date, which is a noun phrase rather than verb_noun, but it is still clear and idiomatic. This single outlier prevents a perfect score.

Tool Count5/5

With 11 tools, the server is well-scoped for a reference-data domain covering statutory rates, calculations, calendars, and settlement conventions. Each tool has a distinct purpose and earns its place; the count is neither thin nor bloated.

Completeness4/5

The server provides strong coverage of its stated domain: statutory tax computations, payroll, minimum wage, VAT, holidays, working days, and settlement dates, plus a generic series API for extensibility. Minor gaps exist, such as payroll only supporting Nigeria and Kenya and no standalone social-security contributor, but the response descriptions explicitly disclose these limits, and the generic series endpoint provides a workaround for common lookups.

Resources