Get official U.S. Treasury exchange rates (units of foreign currency per USD). Complements the ECB-based fx_get_rates. Source: Treasury Reporting Rates of Exchange (public domain, no key, monthly).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| currency | No | ISO code (EUR, GBP, JPY, CHF...) or currency name (Euro, Pound, Yen). Default: EUR |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the source (Treasury Reporting Rates of Exchange), that it is public domain and requires no key, and the update frequency (monthly). This goes beyond a generic 'get rates' description and gives the agent useful behavioral context. It does not describe error handling or output format, but these are less critical for a simple query.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by essential contextual details (source, access, update frequency, relationship to a sibling). Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler.
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 is simple, and the description covers source, access, and update frequency. However, there is a sibling tool named treasury_fx_rates that likely deals with the same data, and the description does not disambiguate from it. Additionally, with no output schema, the description could have mentioned what the response contains (e.g., a single rate or a list), but it remains adequate for basic usage.
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 description covers the only parameter (currency) fully, including examples and default value, so schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no further parameter meaning. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate per the rubric.
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 verb ('Get'), the resource ('official U.S. Treasury exchange rates'), and the unit convention ('units of foreign currency per USD'). It also explicitly names a complementary sibling (fx_get_rates), distinguishing this tool from that alternative. The source attribution adds further specificity.
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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when official U.S. Treasury rates are needed, contrasting with ECB-based fx_get_rates. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention other sibling tools like treasury_fx_rates, which could be a direct alternative. The complementary relationship is implied rather than fully spelled out.
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.
Several tool groups have overlapping purposes: fda_drug_labels vs health_drug_search, fda_recalls vs health_recalls, fx_official_rates vs treasury_fx_rates, treasury_debt vs us_debt_current, and get_gdp vs get_bea_gdp. These near-duplicates create real ambiguity for an agent deciding which tool to call.
Names mix verb-led styles (get_, search_, compare_, screen_) with domain-led styles (fx_, treasury_, uk_, health_, eurostat_, datausa_). Within the same domain, similar actions use different patterns (get_gdp vs eurostat_gdp vs imf_indicator), making the set feel inconsistent and hard to predict.
75 tools is extreme for any MCP server, especially when many tools are redundant or cover unrelated domains (weather, earthquakes, scholarly search, air quality) outside the stated SEC/economics/demographics/FX focus. This overwhelms agents and burdens context windows.
Core domains like SEC financials, major economic indicators, basic demographics, and current FX rates are well covered. However, gaps remain: no historical FX rates, no stock price/quote tool, limited demographic breakdowns, and no ability to fetch full SEC filing text. Some operations end in dead ends.