Skip to main content
Glama

FXMacroData

by io.github.fxmacrodata

Known At Time Task

known_at_time_task
Read-only

Return the slice of a macro series that would have been known at a specific timestamp, using announcement_datetime as the point-in-time integrity boundary. Supports MCP Tasks for async execution when clients send task-augmented requests.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
as_ofYesUTC ISO-8601 timestamp or YYYY-MM-DD cutoff. Only rows with announcement_datetime <= this moment are returned.
currencyYes3-letter ISO currency code (case-insensitive). Supported: AUD, BRL, CAD, CHF, CNH, CNY, DKK, EUR, GBP, ILS, JPY, NGN, NOK, NZD, PEN, SEK, THB, USD.
end_dateNoOptional inclusive upper bound, YYYY-MM-DD.
indicatorYesIndicator slug for the given currency. Supported: average_hourly_earnings, average_hourly_earnings_mom, balance_on_goods, balance_on_services, breakeven_inflation_rate, broad_money, building_approvals, building_permits, business_confidence, capital_account_balance, cb_assets, commodity_price_energy, commodity_price_ex_energy, commodity_price_index, commodity_prices, consumer_confidence, core_inflation, core_inflation_median, core_inflation_mom, core_inflation_trim, core_pce, core_pce_mom, credit_growth, crude_oil_inventories, current_account_balance, dairy_exports, deposit_rates, durable_goods_orders, employment, exports, financial_account_balance, foreign_reserves, full_time_employment, fx_reserves, gdp, gdp_growth_q4_yoy, gold_reserves, gov_bond_10y, gov_bond_1y, gov_bond_20y, gov_bond_2y, gov_bond_30y, gov_bond_3y, gov_bond_40y, gov_bond_4y, gov_bond_5y, gov_bond_7y, government_debt, house_price_index, house_prices, household_credit, housing_starts, imports, inflation, inflation_linked_bond, inflation_mom, initial_jobless_claims, international_assets, international_liabilities, job_openings, m1, m2, m3, nairu, natural_gas_storage, net_foreign_asset_position, non_farm_payrolls, non_farm_payrolls_change, part_time_employment, participation_rate, pce, pce_mom, policy_rate, policy_rate_midpoint, policy_rate_mlf, policy_rate_mro, policy_rate_target_lower, ppi, ppi_mom, primary_income_balance, retail_sales, retail_sales_control_group, retail_sales_ex_autos, retail_sales_ex_autos_and_gas, risk_free_rate, secondary_income_balance, sight_deposits, snb_balance_sheet, tankan_capex, terms_of_trade, trade_balance, trade_weighted_index, trimmed_mean_inflation, unemployment, wage_price_index, wages.
start_dateNoOptional inclusive lower bound, YYYY-MM-DD.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds useful behavior beyond that: the announcement_datetime point-in-time boundary and the optional MCP Tasks async path. There is no contradiction with the 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 two sentences with no filler. The core PIT behavior is front-loaded, and the async note is a single useful addition. Every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the 100% schema coverage, rich annotations, and moderate parameter complexity, the description is nearly complete. It covers the central PIT behavior and task-based async execution, though it does not explicitly route users away from sibling tools or describe the output shape, which is a minor 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the as_of semantics by mentioning announcement_datetime, but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema documents.

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 specific action: returning a 'slice of a macro series' with point-in-time integrity using announcement_datetime. This gives a concrete verb and resource, and the focus on 'would have been known at a specific timestamp' distinguishes it from ordinary series-query tools like indicator_query.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies when to use the tool: when a known-at-a-timestamp snapshot is needed, using announcement_datetime as the boundary. It also adds explicit context about async execution via MCP Tasks. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say 'use this instead of X', but the PIT framing is clear and actionable.

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