bond-yield-calcYield to maturity, duration, and convexity calculator.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| calcMode | No | Calculation mode | price-to-yield |
| faceValue | No | Face value (per 100 yen) | |
| frequency | No | Coupon payment frequency | semi-annual |
| couponRate | No | Coupon rate (%) | |
| targetYield | No | Target yield (%) for yield-to-price mode | |
| currentPrice | No | Current market price (per 100 yen) | |
| yearsToMaturity | No | Years to maturity |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / calcModeAdded value: +{
+ "default": "price-to-yield",
+ "description": "Calculation mode",
+ "enum": [
+ "price-to-yield",
+ "yield-to-price"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / couponRateAdded value: +{
+ "default": 0.8,
+ "description": "Coupon rate (%)",
+ "maximum": 100,
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / currentPriceAdded value: +{
+ "default": 98,
+ "description": "Current market price (per 100 yen)",
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / faceValueAdded value: +{
+ "default": 100,
+ "description": "Face value (per 100 yen)",
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / frequencyAdded value: +{
+ "default": "semi-annual",
+ "description": "Coupon payment frequency",
+ "enum": [
+ "annual",
+ "semi-annual"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / targetYieldAdded value: +{
+ "default": 1,
+ "description": "Target yield (%) for yield-to-price mode",
+ "maximum": 100,
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / yearsToMaturityAdded value: +{
+ "default": 10,
+ "description": "Years to maturity",
+ "maximum": 100,
+ "minimum": 0.1,
+ "type": "number"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It only names the outputs, but does not disclose how the tool behaves (e.g., calcMode behavior, input requirements, assumptions, output format). The agent cannot anticipate edge cases or operational constraints.
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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It efficiently states the core functionality without 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?
Despite having 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description does not explain calculation modes, how inputs relate to outputs, or return value structure. Critical contextual information for correct tool invocation is missing.
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 coverage is 100% for all 7 parameters, so the schema already documents inputs. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond naming the three financial metrics, which map to the tool's purpose rather than parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies.
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 specifies the tool's outputs (yield to maturity, duration, convexity), clearly distinguishing it from sibling calculators like npv-irr-calc or investment-simulator. The verb is implied through 'calculator,' but it lacks an explicit action like 'calculates.'
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it is, leaving the agent to infer contexts like bond valuation. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references.
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.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, such as bg-remover, bg-remover-pro, pro-matting, and takumi all performing background removal, and upscaler/upscaler-pro being redundant. With 202 tools, an agent may easily select the wrong one despite detailed descriptions.
Most tools use a consistent kebab-case format with descriptive names like pdf-compress, image-resizer, and tax-return-calc. Exceptions like 'takumi', 'pro-matting', and '-pro' suffixes (bg-remover-pro, upscaler-pro) are minor deviations relative to the total.
202 tools is an extreme mismatch for an MCP server, far exceeding the typical 3-15 well-scoped range. The sheer volume makes it unwieldy for an agent to efficiently navigate and select the right tool.
The tool set provides extensive coverage across many domains, including PDF operations (20+ tools), image editing, financial calculations, e-commerce fee estimation, and YouTube utilities. Minor gaps exist in cross-tool integration, but the breadth is highly comprehensive for the apparent purpose.