CurrencyGuard Guard Pricing

Explain Guard Product

explain_guard_product

Read-only

Explain the Guard product using CurrencyGuard's approved product and FAQ content. Covers: what the Guard is, how it works, who it is for, how it compares to a forward or to doing nothing, and legal, regulatory, accounting, or eligibility questions. Compare the Guard only with a forward and with doing nothing, as the product text does. If asked to compare it with any other FX product, give the FAQ's definition of what the Guard is and is not, and do not build the comparison: no table, no matching of the Guard fee or the Guard rate to that product's terms.

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": "explain_guard_product"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 16, 2026
- addedInput schema / $schema
```
Added value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
```
- removedInput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[]
```
Changed1 schema field changedMay 11, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
First observedApr 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world tool. The description adds useful behavioral constraints beyond annotations, especially the approved-content source and the rule against building tables or matching Guard fees/rates to other FX products.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose and then lists covered topics and comparison constraints. It is somewhat long, but the detail is relevant to preventing incorrect comparisons, and there is little purely redundant wording.

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, read-only explanation tool, the description is largely complete: it defines the content source, covered questions, and comparison boundaries. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly stating that the response is explanatory text, but no output schema exists and the core behavior is clear.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing schema coverage.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: explain the Guard product using approved product and FAQ content. It also scopes the explanation to defined topics and explicitly limits comparisons to a forward or doing nothing, which distinguishes it from sibling tools such as compare_guard_with_forward and price_guard.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear usage context and exclusions: use approved FAQ content, compare only with a forward or doing nothing, and do not build comparisons against other FX products. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, so routing guidance is strong but not fully explicit.

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

All CurrencyGuard Guard Pricing tools Inspect

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

Need Help?