Skip to main content
Glama

FXMacroData

by io.github.fxmacrodata

Macro Research Pack Task

macro_research_pack_task
Read-only

Bundle catalogue, indicator history, next release timing, and optional FX pair context into one persistent-host-friendly research payload. Supports MCP Tasks for async execution when clients send task-augmented requests.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
baseNoOptional FX base currency for pair context.
quoteNoOptional FX quote currency for pair context.
currencyYes3-letter ISO currency code. 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. 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

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar for added behavioral context is lower. The description adds the async execution trait and 'persistent-host-friendly' framing, which go beyond the annotations. However, it does not describe return payload shape, potential size, or any task-request details, so the behavioral disclosure remains thin.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is compact at two sentences, with the core function front-loaded and the async support note kept separate. There is no redundant restatement of the title or schema. The phrase 'persistent-host-friendly' is vague jargon, but it does not bloat the overall structure.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given six parameters, no output schema, and a large sibling task family, the description leaves important gaps: it never describes the structure or shape of the research payload, what 'task-augmented requests' look like, or how the agent should initiate the async path. It also fails to position the tool against the many other _task siblings. This is insufficient for agents to reliably invoke it correctly.

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%, with each of the six parameters already carrying descriptions and examples. The description's mention of 'optional FX pair context' maps to base/quote but adds no new syntax or format guidance. This is the baseline 3: the schema does the work, and the description contributes no meaningful parameter-level semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Bundle' and names distinct components (catalogue, indicator history, next release timing, FX pair context), which makes the tool's purpose fairly clear. It does not explicitly state the resource or scope ('for a currency and indicator'), but the component list is specific enough to differentiate it from many siblings. It stops short of a 5 because it relies on the title and jargon like 'persistent-host-friendly' rather than a crisp, standalone definition.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The only usage hint is 'Supports MCP Tasks for async execution when clients send task-augmented requests', which addresses invocation mode but not when to choose this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons are given for similar tools like macro_briefing_task, indicator_intel_task, or known_at_time_task. This leaves the agent without practical guidance for tool selection.

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