get_fx_officialOfficial FX rate — one African pair. Central-bank reference rate vs USD for one of KES, NGN, GHS, TZS, UGX, ZAR, EGP, RWF, timestamped and sourced. $0.01 USDC on Base. Returns the x402 URL to GET (402 → PAYMENT-SIGNATURE → delivery). Free to call this tool; payment happens on the URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pair | Yes | e.g. USD-KES (required) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses the paid x402 URL flow, the fact the tool call itself is free, and that the output is timestamped and sourced. This materially exceeds what the schema provides, though it leaves some details (error behavior, rate freshness) unlisted.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose, adding payment mechanics in a natural second half. Minor redundancy with the title is acceptable.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the unusual return (a URL) and the follow-up flow (402 → PAYMENT-SIGNATURE → delivery), and notes source/timestamp. It could be more explicit about the delivery payload shape, but is otherwise complete for selecting and invoking the tool.
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 coverage is 100% but provides only an example format and required flag. The description adds the exact list of supported currency codes and clarifies the rate is vs USD, narrowing the accepted pair space 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 names the resource (official central-bank reference rate vs USD for one African pair) and lists accepted currencies, distinguishing it from siblings like get_fx_parallel and get_fx_africa_brief. The verb is implied by the tool name but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
It is clear this tool is for a single official rate, and sibling names such as get_fx_parallel imply alternative use cases, but the description stops short of explicitly directing users to alternatives for multi-pair or non-official rates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct targets: FX official vs parallel vs brief, carrier vs broker vs BASICs, name vs wallet sanctions, and insurance vs real-estate CE. The bundled tools (vet_load, get_fx_africa_brief, buy_shelf_pass) overlap with individual tools but their descriptions explicitly frame them as convenience packages or payment modes, reducing real misselection risk.
Every tool follows a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: buy_*, check_*, get_*, list_*, screen_sanctions_*, vet_load. There is no mixed casing or inconsistent verb styling across the set.
At 16 tools the set is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but the server intentionally spans FX, freight, compliance, and the x402 purchase lifecycle, so most tools earn their place. The count feels a bit heavy but not bloated.
Core workflows are covered: shelf discovery, generic and pass-based purchasing, order status, pass balance, and the main FX, freight, OFAC, and Texas CE data shelves. Minor gaps such as cancellation/refund endpoints, non-US sanctions lists, or additional freight jurisdictions do not block primary agent workflows.