get_fiat_rate_sourcesReturns Arzbin source comparison data for a fiat currency code where available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | Fiat currency code such as USD, EUR, AED, GBP. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| source | Yes | ||
| disclaimer | Yes | ||
| generatedAtUtc | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the 'where available' condition, implying data may be missing for some currencies, but does not elaborate on error handling, empty results, or rate limits. This is minimal added value beyond annotations.
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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It wastes no words and directly communicates the core action and resource, making it easy to scan.
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?
The tool is simple with one parameter and has a comprehensive set of annotations plus an output schema. The description covers the purpose and the availability caveat, which is sufficient for this complexity. Slightly more detail about what 'source comparison data' means could improve it, but it is not necessary given the output schema.
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 description coverage is 100% with the 'code' parameter already described as 'Fiat currency code such as USD, EUR, AED, GBP.' The tool description only repeats 'fiat currency code' without adding new meaning, so it does not compensate beyond the schema baseline.
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 clearly states the tool returns 'Arzbin source comparison data for a fiat currency code', specifying both the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_latest_fiat_rates by focusing on source comparison rather than just rates, and adds a condition 'where available'.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for comparing sources or when to prefer it over get_latest_fiat_rates. The 'where available' is a condition, not a usage guideline.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of the market data domain: converting amounts, fetching current rates for different asset classes, retrieving historical data, and accessing rate sources. The clear differentiation between crypto, fiat, gold, and conversion prevents ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent get_/convert_ verb-noun snake_case pattern. The only deviation is convert_to_toman, which still fits the verb_object style and is distinguishable from the get_ family.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of providing Toman-denominated market data. Each tool covers a necessary function—rates for various asset classes, conversion, history, and source info—without unnecessary bloat.
The tool surface comprehensively covers the domain: current rates for crypto, fiat, and gold, conversion to Toman, historical OHLC data, and source comparison. No obvious gaps exist for a market data server focused on Iranian exchange rates.