Skip to main content
Glama

FXMacroData

by io.github.fxmacrodata

FX Trade Setup Task

fx_trade_setup_task
Read-only

Build a trader-oriented FX pair setup using spot context, macro differentials, upcoming catalyst risk, and optional COT positioning. Supports MCP Tasks for async execution when clients send task-augmented requests.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
baseYesBase currency, 3-letter ISO code. Supported: AUD, BRL, CAD, CHF, CNH, CNY, DKK, EUR, GBP, ILS, JPY, NGN, NOK, NZD, PEN, SEK, THB, USD.
quoteYesQuote currency, 3-letter ISO code. Supported: AUD, BRL, CAD, CHF, CNH, CNY, DKK, EUR, GBP, ILS, JPY, NGN, NOK, NZD, PEN, SEK, THB, USD.
include_cotNoWhen true, attempt to include COT positioning context for both legs.
horizon_eventsNoMaximum upcoming catalysts per leg to rank.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with a safe read operation. It adds context about the data sources and async execution, but neither the return format nor potential limitations are disclosed, providing moderate added value beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is exactly two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and adding one clarifying sentence about async execution. No filler or redundant wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what the 'setup' output contains and how async execution behaves. It leaves these details vague, but annotations and parameter descriptions handle safety and input definitions, creating a moderate gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema descriptions cover all four parameters (100% coverage) with detailed examples. The description adds minimal extra meaning by linking 'optional COT positioning' to include_cot and 'upcoming catalyst risk' to horizon_events, but does not surpass the schema's own clarity.

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 'Build[s] a trader-oriented FX pair setup' and lists specific inputs (spot context, macro differentials, catalyst risk, COT). This specific verb+resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like fx_backtest_task or pair_intel_task.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage context is implied through the description of inputs and async support, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. The mention of MCP Tasks hints at async scenarios but does not compare with other task tools.

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

All FXMacroData 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes with detailed descriptions; the visual_artifact variants are explicitly duplicate payloads for chart rendering. However, several task and analysis tools (macro_briefing_task, macro_research_pack_task, indicator_intel_task) have overlapping scopes and could cause misselection despite different outputs.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names are consistently snake_case with systematic _task and _visual_artifact suffixes, making the pattern predictable. Minor deviations like 'ping', 'subscribe_for_mcp_access', and a few noun-only names (e.g., 'forex', 'commodities') break a strict verb_noun pattern but remain readable.

Tool Count2/5

At 48 tools, the surface is far beyond the typical well-scoped server and risks overwhelming agents. The broad macro/FX domain justifies some size, but 48 is excessive and could be consolidated (e.g., merging visual artifact pairs or grouping task tools).

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full macro/FX workflow: data discovery (data_catalogue), raw queries (indicator_query, forex, commodities), visual artifacts, release calendar, news, COT, sentiment, seasonality, backtesting, scenario modeling, portfolio risk, and reference tools. No obvious dead ends or missing lifecycle operations for a read-heavy data server.

Resources