get_yield_curveReturns 2s10s (2-year vs 10-year) and 3m10y (3-month vs 10-year) Treasury yield curve spreads with inversion signal. An inverted yield curve (negative spread) historically precedes recessions. Source: FRED. Price: $0.03 USDC per call via x402 (Base or Solana).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
- "additionalProperties": false,
- "properties": {
- "DGS10": {
- "description": "10-Year Treasury yield",
- "type": "number"
- },
- "DGS1MO": {
- "description": "1-Month T-Bill rate",
- "type": "number"
- },
- "DGS2": {
- "description": "2-Year Treasury yield",
- "type": "number"
- },
- "as_of": {
- "description": "Date of the most recent underlying data",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "inverted_2s10s": {
- "description": "Whether the 2s10s spread is negative (inverted)",
- "type": "boolean"
- },
- "inverted_3m10y": {
- "description": "Whether the 3m10y spread is negative (inverted)",
- "type": "boolean"
- },
- "signal": {
- "description": "Curve shape signal: Fully inverted, Partially inverted, or Normal",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "spread_2s10s": {
- "description": "10Y minus 2Y Treasury spread in percentage points",
- "type": "number"
- },
- "spread_3m10y": {
- "description": "10Y minus 3-Month T-Bill spread in percentage points",
- "type": "number"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "as_of",
- "spread_2s10s",
- "spread_3m10y",
- "DGS2",
- "DGS10",
- "DGS1MO",
- "inverted_2s10s",
- "inverted_3m10y",
- "signal"
- ],
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the upstream source (FRED) and an explicit cost of $0.03 USDC per call via x402 on Base or Solana — pricing is the kind of detail annotations never carry. It does not state whether calls are cached or what happens on upstream failure, keeping it below 5.
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?
Three short sentences: what it returns, why it matters, where it comes from, then the price line. Front-loaded with the payload and every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract and it largely does by naming both spreads and the inversion signal. The one gap is units/format — whether spreads come back in basis points or percent — which an agent needs to render or threshold the values correctly.
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 the baseline is 4 and there is nothing the description could add or omit on this dimension.
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 and resource ('Returns 2s10s and 3m10y Treasury yield curve spreads') plus the derived artifact ('inversion signal'). This is precise enough to separate it from siblings like get_treasury_yield_current (single-tenor yields) and get_recession_indicator without opening any schema.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not statement, and no sibling is named as an alternative for related needs. Usage is only implied by the interpretive note that inversion precedes recessions, which tells an agent why it might want the data but not when to pick this over get_treasury_yield_by_date.
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.