get_treasury_yield_currentReturns the most recent 30-year US Treasury constant maturity yield (DGS30) from FRED. Free — no payment required. For other series use get_current_value or get_series. Free — no payment required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
- "additionalProperties": false,
- "properties": {
- "date": {
- "description": "Date of the observation (YYYY-MM-DD)",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "yield_percent": {
- "description": "Current 30-year Treasury yield as a percentage",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "yield_percent",
- "date"
- ],
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the upstream source (FRED) and a cost note, but does not say what 'most recent' means in practice (latest business day, publication lag, caching/refresh cadence) or the units of the returned value.
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 core is two tight, front-loaded sentences, but 'Free — no payment required.' appears twice verbatim, which is pure waste in a definition this short. Removing the duplicate would leave a well-structured definition.
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?
For a zero-parameter, single-value lookup with no output schema, the description covers the series, source, and cost. The only real gap is the return shape (bare number vs. object with date) and units, which an agent must otherwise infer.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the series identifier DGS30 usefully pins down what fixed input the tool substitutes for.
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?
States a specific verb, resource, and scope: the most recent 30-year constant maturity yield (DGS30) sourced from FRED. The series ID makes it unambiguously distinguishable from siblings like get_yield_curve and get_treasury_yield_by_date.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent to get_current_value or get_series when a different series is wanted, which is the main ambiguity here. It does not, however, address when to prefer this over get_treasury_yield_by_date (historical dates) or get_yield_curve (term structure), so the routing is only partially complete.
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.