Skip to main content
Glama

FXMacroData

by io.github.fxmacrodata

FX Pair Intelligence Task

pair_intel_task
Read-only

Build an intelligence pack for an FX pair by combining policy-rate spread context, spot-rate context, and release-timing metadata. Supports MCP Tasks for async execution when clients send task-augmented requests.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
baseYesBase currency, 3-letter ISO code (case-insensitive). 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 (case-insensitive). Supported: AUD, BRL, CAD, CHF, CNH, CNY, DKK, EUR, GBP, ILS, JPY, NGN, NOK, NZD, PEN, SEK, THB, USD.
end_dateNoInclusive upper bound, YYYY-MM-DD.
start_dateNoInclusive 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by mentioning MCP Tasks support and listing the combined context sources, which goes beyond 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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The core action and the MCP Tasks behavior are stated efficiently, with no redundant information.

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 full schema coverage and annotations, the description explains the tool's purpose and the three combined components. It lacks a description of the output format, but the tool name and 'intelligence pack' imply a structure. Slightly more detail on returned data could push it to 5.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, so the description need not repeat them. The description adds a high-level hint about the context sources but does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema.

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 builds an intelligence pack for an FX pair, specifying the combination of policy-rate spread, spot-rate, and release-timing metadata. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fx_backtest_task or macro_briefing_task.

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 usage: use when you need an intelligence pack for an FX pair with those three context types. It also notes support for MCP Tasks for async execution, adding context. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or name alternatives.

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