JMT x402 MCP Server

treasury_yields

Fetch current US Treasury yield curve data for various maturities. Pay $0.03 per call in USDC on Base mainnet via x402.

Instructions

US Treasury yield curve. Price: $0.03/call via x402 (USDC on Base mainnet).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "treasury_yields"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It discloses that calls cost $0.03 via x402 (USDC on Base mainnet), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention data freshness, caching, rate limits, or whether results are static or dynamic.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two sentences: one for purpose, one for pricing. Extremely concise with no wasted words. Could be slightly improved by front-loading a verb, but it is efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, description should explain what the tool returns. 'US Treasury yield curve' is vague—does it return a list of rates, a chart, or structured data? No mention of maturities, return format, or examples. Incomplete for a tool with no parameters and no output schema.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Input schema has no parameters and is 100% covered by description (since none exist). Description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable given zero parameters. Baseline of 3 applies.

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

Purpose3/5

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

Description states 'US Treasury yield curve', which clearly indicates the tool returns yield curve data. However, it lacks a verb like 'Get' or 'Retrieve', and does not specify which yields (e.g., 2yr, 10yr) or whether it's current or historical. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on treasury yields.

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 vs. siblings like macro_dashboard or market_pulse. The pricing mentions a cost, but does not explain scenarios where this tool is preferred over others.

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