Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

CurrencyCore

by com.currency-core
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Safe haven

analyze_safe_haven
Read-onlyIdempotent

Ranks currencies by a composite safe-haven score (low volatility + shallow drawdown + 2008-crisis resilience). Growth plan or higher.

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": "analyze_safe_haven"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoWindow end YYYY-MM-DD (UTC). Defaults to today.
baseNoBase currency to measure against (3-letter ISO 4217). Defaults to USD.
fromNoWindow start YYYY-MM-DD (UTC). Defaults to 2007-01-01 (spans the 2008 crisis + COVID), or to 20 years before `to` when that is later.
limitNoHow many to return (default 10, max 50).
currenciesNoComma-separated currencies to score, e.g. CHF,JPY. OMIT to rank the liquid-fiat safe-haven pool (precious metals are not supported).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing the access-tier requirement ("Growth plan or higher") and how the composite score is constructed, though it says nothing about ordering, scoring range, or latency.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scoring model, with the access-tier caveat trailing where it belongs. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a parameterless-required, read-only ranking tool with full schema coverage, this covers action, methodology, and access gating. Since there is no output schema the description could say more about the returned shape (ranked list with per-currency scores?), which is the only meaningful gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters including defaults and the 20-year fallback window are already documented in structured form. The only description-side hint, "2008-crisis resilience," loosely explains why the default `from` reaches back to 2007 but adds no new parameter semantics; baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ("Ranks currencies") plus the exact scoring model ("low volatility + shallow drawdown + 2008-crisis resilience"), which distinguishes it from the narrower sibling tools analyze_volatility and analyze_drawdown by naming the composite it builds from them.

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 only implied: the composite-score framing suggests this is the tool for holistic safe-haven ranking rather than single-factor analysis, but nothing states when to prefer it over analyze_volatility or analyze_drawdown. The one explicit constraint, "Growth plan or higher," is a plan prerequisite rather than selection guidance.

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

All CurrencyCore 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