Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

CurrencyCore

by com.currency-core
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Volatility

analyze_volatility
Read-onlyIdempotent

Annualized volatility of a currency vs a base, or a stability ranking of the liquid currencies. 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_volatility"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoWindow end YYYY-MM-DD (UTC). Defaults to today; a future date clamps to today.
baseNoBase currency to measure against (3-letter ISO 4217). Defaults to USD.
fromNoWindow start YYYY-MM-DD (UTC). Defaults to 365 days before `to`.
sortNoRanking direction: stable (least volatile first, default) or volatile.
limitNoRanking: how many to return (default 10, max 50).
currencyNoCurrency to measure (3-letter ISO 4217), or a comma-separated list to compare. OMIT to RANK the liquid-currency set by stability.
universeNoRanking universe: liquid (default, broad set) or majors (USD/EUR/GBP/JPY/CHF/CAD/AUD/NZD). Use majors for 'most volatile major pair'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new information the annotations do not: the tool requires a 'Growth plan or higher', which is a real access constraint an agent must know before calling.

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 compact sentences with the core computation front-loaded and the plan requirement as a trailing fragment; nothing is redundant. It is arguably too terse for a seven-parameter tool, but no sentence is wasted.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Seven optional parameters and no output schema mean the description should say something about what comes back (a percentage? a ranked list with scores?), and it does not. Parameter behavior is fully carried by the schema, so the remaining gap is the return shape and the absence of any routing guidance among the analyze_* siblings.

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%, and the schema already documents every parameter including defaults, the `universe` options, sort direction and the limit cap. The description only restates the two top-level modes and adds no format, default or interaction detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description names the exact computation (annualized volatility) and the resource (a currency against a base), and it flags the second mode (stability ranking of liquid currencies). An agent can tell this apart from analyze_drawdown or analyze_correlation, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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: 'of a currency vs a base, or a stability ranking' hints at two modes, but the actual selector (omit `currency` to rank) lives in the schema, not the description. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to the other analyze_* tools, and no exclusions.

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