get_yield_closesOfficial 17:00 New York Treasury yield closes per session, as Helious recorded them. Opens on Starter and above.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Most rows to return. | |
| since | No | Oldest date to include, like 2026-06-01. How far back you can go depends on your plan. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive), lowering the burden on the description. The description adds the origin of the data (Helious recordings), the official 17:00 New York session scope, and the Starter plan requirement, but it does not clarify ordering, pagination, or how 'per session' appears in results.
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 description is compact and readable, with two short sentences. It front-loads the core data definition and adds plan-level context, although the opening phrase partially repeats the title, which costs it the highest mark.
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 read-only list tool with two optional parameters and strong annotations, the definition is fairly complete: it identifies the data source, the session time, and access plan. It lacks any statement about return shape or ordering, but the absence of an output schema is not critical here given the simple topic.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%: both optional parameters (limit and since) are already documented in the schema with clear explanations. The description supplies no extra information about parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: it returns Official 17:00 New York Treasury yield closes per session, as recorded by Helious. This is precise enough to be distinguished from sibling tools like get_treasury_curve or get_rates_and_curve, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
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?
There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus siblings, and no alternative is referenced. The intended use is implied by the title and description—getting official 17:00 closes—but the definition does not help the agent choose confidently among related market-data tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.