Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Banxico SIE MCP Server

Banxico SIE MCP Server

by DanMR8
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

get_spei

Retrieve monthly SPEI transfer data for a specified date range (yyyy-MM-dd) to analyze Mexico's interbank payment volumes.

Instructions

SPEI mensual en rango (yyyy-MM-dd). / SPEI transfers.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "fecha_ini": "<fecha_ini>",
      "fecha_fin": "<fecha_fin>"
    },
    "name": "get_spei"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fecha_finYes
fecha_iniYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

D1.8/5.0
Behavior1/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no auth requirements, no rate limits, no indication of whether results are paginated or how monthly aggregation is applied. The agent has no behavioral signal at all.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is short, but shortness here reflects under-specification rather than economy. The two slash-separated fragments ('SPEI mensual en rango' and 'SPEI transfers') are redundant and ambiguous rather than front-loading a clear purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage on both required params, the description needed to carry the whole load. It leaves the metric being returned, the aggregation semantics, and the date-bound conventions entirely undefined.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only supplies a partial format hint ('yyyy-MM-dd') for the date range; it does not clarify which bound is start vs end, inclusive/exclusive semantics, or acceptable date ranges.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource (SPEI) and hints at a monthly, range-based query, but 'SPEI mensual en rango' / 'SPEI transfers' never says what is actually returned (transfer volume? amount? count?). It is close to a restatement of the name rather than a statement of purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_divisas_rango, get_tasas_rango or get_dolar_hoy. The date-range constraint is implied by 'en rango' but there is no when/when-not or alternative routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools