xoomar-mcp

US macro series

macro_series

Query daily US Treasury yield curve points, spreads, and stablecoin supply by series name and date range to analyze macro trends.

Instructions

US Treasury yield curve points, curve spreads and stablecoin supply as daily series. Filter by series name and date range.

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": "macro_series"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	No
`from`	No	YYYY-MM-DD
`series`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a read/query tool only implicitly and does not disclose pagination, return shape, rate limits, or how many series can be requested at once. For a multi-series data tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what data is returned and followed by filtering guidance. No wasted text, though it is quite minimal given the tool's multi-series nature.

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 only 33% schema coverage, the description should do more to explain valid series values, date range behavior, and return structure. As written, an agent lacks enough detail to invoke the tool correctly beyond the most basic case.

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?

Schema coverage is only 33% – only the 'from' parameter has a description (YYYY-MM-DD). The description adds that 'to'/'from' define a date range and 'series' is a series name, which helps interpret the two undocumented parameters, but it does not clarify accepted series identifiers or date format for 'to'. This partially compensates for the low coverage but leaves gaps.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb+resource: 'US Treasury yield curve points, curve spreads and stablecoin supply as daily series.' An agent can tell this retrieves macro daily series data, distinct from siblings like fed_liquidity or policy_rates. It is clear, though it does not explicitly name how it differs from those nearest siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description says 'Filter by series name and date range,' which implies usage context, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives like fed_liquidity, policy_rates, or economic_calendar. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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