Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

APIVerve

by com.apiverve
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Currency Rate

CurrencyRate
Read-only

Currency Rate: Currency Rate returns one currency's live value in US dollars or any other base, across 170+ currencies, with its name, symbol and direction since yesterday. Paid plans add any base currency, 1-day to 1-year changes, 24-hour and 30-day highs and lows, and hourly and 30-day daily history. (Cost: 2 credits)

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": {
      "currency": "<currency>"
    },
    "name": "CurrencyRate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
baseNoThe currency to price it in; defaults to USDUSD
dailyNoInclude the daily closing price for the last 30 days
hourlyNoInclude the price for each of the last 24 hours
currencyYesThe ISO 4217 code of the currency to price (e.g. EUR)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
errorNoError message, null on success
statusNo"ok" on success

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), and the description adds real context beyond them: premium features require paid plans, a credit cost of 2, and the recency semantics ('direction since yesterday'). It does not disclose error behavior, rate limits, or whether premium flags fail or silently degrade on free plans.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior and then progressively detailing premium capabilities, ending with the cost in parentheses. The middle sentence is a long feature list, but every clause conveys capability information, so there is little waste.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary, and all four parameters are described in the schema. What remains thin is the plan-tier boundary: the agent cannot tell which requests will cost more or fail without a paid plan, though the credit cost itself is disclosed.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by tying the 'base' parameter and the hourly/daily history options to paid plans, which the schema does not say. It still does not clarify whether a non-USD base is rejected or ignored on a free plan.

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 and resource ('returns one currency's live value') along with scope: 170+ currencies, optional base currency, and included fields (name, symbol, direction). It never names the near-neighbors CurrencyConverter, ExchangeRate, or BenchmarkRate, so an agent must infer which rate tool to pick, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

Usage is implied by the description of what the tool returns, and the cost note ('2 credits') plus paid-plan gating gives the agent a rough context for when it is appropriate. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no pointer to a sibling for conversions of amounts rather than single rates.

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

All APIVerve toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources