Global macroeconomic intelligence — IMF GDP growth & inflation for 229 countries, World Bank development indicators, and OECD interest rates. The only global economic data API on x402.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 3.4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Tools are differentiated by data source (IMF, OECD, World Bank) and specific indicators, but there is overlap in some metrics like GDP and inflation, which could cause minor confusion for agents.
All tools follow a consistent 'get_' + descriptive noun pattern (get_global_gdp, get_oecd_indicators, get_world_bank_data), making naming predictable.
Three tools is a reasonable number for a focused economic data server, covering major sources without being too sparse or overwhelming.
The server covers three major economic data sources, but lacks tools for querying individual countries or specific time series, and misses other important sources like UN data.
get_global_gdpBInspectGet global GDP and macroeconomic indicators from the IMF World Economic Outlook. Supports GDP growth, inflation, government debt, current account, and GDP per capita for major economies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | Year for data (default: current year) | 2026 |
| countries | No | Comma-separated ISO-3 country codes (default: USA,CHN,DEU,GBR,JPN,FRA,IND,BRA) | USA,CHN,DEU,GBR,JPN,FRA,IND,BRA |
| indicator | No | IMF indicator code: NGDP_RPCH (GDP growth), PCPIPCH (inflation), GGXWDG_NGDP (gov debt), BCA_NGDPD (current account), NGDPDPC (GDP per capita) | NGDP_RPCH |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It identifies the data source and supported indicators, but does not disclose update frequency, data freshness, error handling for invalid codes, or any access limitations. The schema provides defaults and example values, but behavioral traits beyond source are missing.
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?
Two efficient sentences front-load the purpose and content. Every sentence adds value without extraneous detail, achieving high density of useful information for an agent.
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?
Without output schema or annotations, the description should clarify the return format or data structure. It only states 'Get global GDP...' without describing the response shape. Combined with missing usage differentiation, it leaves the agent needing additional inference.
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%, so the schema already documents each parameter's meaning, defaults, and examples. The description adds minimal value beyond listing supported indicators in prose, which is redundant with the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool retrieves global GDP and macroeconomic indicators from the IMF World Economic Outlook, listing specific indicators (GDP growth, inflation, government debt, current account, GDP per capita) and major economies. This provides a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings by source.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its siblings (get_oecd_indicators, get_world_bank_data). The description does not mention circumstances where this tool is preferred or where others might be better, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_oecd_indicatorsBInspectGet OECD country comparison data for G7 and major economies. Topics: interest_rates (long-term), trade_balance (current account), cpi (inflation).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | No | interest_rates | trade_balance | cpi | interest_rates |
| countries | No | Comma-separated ISO-3 country codes (default: G7 = USA,CAN,DEU,FRA,GBR,ITA,JPN) | USA,CAN,DEU,FRA,GBR,ITA,JPN |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, or output format. For a data retrieval tool, more transparency is expected.
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 a single, clear sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every word is functional, with no extraneous information, making it highly concise.
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?
Given the simple parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but does not explain the return format or any edge cases. It covers the basics but lacks completeness for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.
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%, with both parameters described in detail in the schema. The description adds context by listing topics and default countries, but largely repeats schema information, offering marginal added value.
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 clearly states it retrieves OECD country comparison data for G7 and major economies, listing three specific topics. It differentiates from sibling tools by specifying the data source (OECD) and the specific indicators, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.
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?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (get_global_gdp, get_world_bank_data). There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_world_bank_dataAInspectGet development indicators from the World Bank for major countries. Covers GDP, population, inflation, unemployment, GDP per capita, and Gini index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mrv | No | Most recent values count (default: 1) | |
| countries | No | Semicolon-separated ISO-2 country codes (default: US;CN;DE;GB;JP;FR;IN;BR;CA;AU) | US;CN;DE;GB;JP;FR;IN;BR;CA;AU |
| indicator | No | World Bank indicator: NY.GDP.MKTP.CD (GDP $), SP.POP.TOTL (population), FP.CPI.TOTL.ZG (inflation), SL.UEM.TOTL.ZS (unemployment), NY.GDP.PCAP.CD (GDP per capita), SI.POV.GINI (Gini) | NY.GDP.MKTP.CD |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only lists indicators. It does not disclose behavior such as data freshness, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if no data is available.
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?
Single, well-structured sentence that is concise and informative. No unnecessary words.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (3 optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality. However, missing usage guidelines and behavioral context slightly reduce completeness.
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% and each parameter has a detailed description including defaults and examples. The tool description adds context about covered indicators but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves World Bank development indicators for major countries and lists specific indicators (GDP, population, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like get_global_gdp and get_oecd_indicators by specifying the data source and coverage.
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?
The description implies use for World Bank data but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for OECD data use get_oecd_indicators). No when-not or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
