get_macroKeyless macro series: Fed funds, US 10Y, US CPI y/y, unemployment, ECB deposit rate, euro HICP (official sources, dated). Call this when you need rates/inflation context.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_macro"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by saying the series is 'keyless' and comes from 'official sources, dated.' It does not disclose refresh cadence or rate limits, but it adds meaningful access and provenance details.
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 two compact sentences with zero waste. The series list is front-loaded and the usage condition follows immediately.
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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it lists the covered series and gives a direct usage cue. It could go further by describing the response shape or freshness guarantees, but the essential information for invocation is present.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics for the description to explain, and the schema is complete for a no-argument tool.
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 resource: a keyless macro series covering specific indicators such as Fed funds, US 10Y, CPI, unemployment, ECB deposit rate, and euro HICP. It distinguishes the tool's content from generic market or news siblings by naming the exact macro series, though it does not explicitly contrast with nearby tools like get_market or get_current_regime.
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?
It provides a clear usage cue: 'Call this when you need rates/inflation context.' That tells the agent when to select it. However, it does not name when-not to use it or point to sibling alternatives for broader market/regime 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.