Skip to main content
Glama

CurrencyGuard Guard Pricing

by com.currencyguard

Historic Best/Worst FX Performance

get_historic_best_worst
Read-only

Analyze historic best/worst FX performance for a currency pair over a Guard's duration. Uses Bank of England historic rates. Returns a 'performances' array with 6 entries — BEST and WORST for each of three lookback periods (5, 10, 25 years). Each entry contains: type, lookbackYears, startDate/endDate, startRate/endRate, performancePercentage, startAmount, finalAmount, deltaAmount. For Guard-Pay: negative delta = cost decreased = BEST; positive delta = cost increased = WORST. For Guard-Receive: positive delta = receipt increased = BEST; negative delta = receipt decreased = WORST. Parameters must match the values used in the preceding price_guard call, including payReceive (PAY or RECEIVE).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
payReceiveYesMUST be the exact same payReceive value you used in price_guard (PAY or RECEIVE). Do NOT change it.
guardAmountYesGuard amount in base/home currency from the Guard quote (the guardAmount field from the price_guard response)
foreignAmountYesAmount in foreign currency — MUST match foreignAmount from price_guard
guardCurrencyYesHome/base currency ISO code — MUST match guardCurrency from price_guard
settlementDateYesSettlement date in ISO format YYYY-MM-DD — MUST match settlementDate from price_guard
foreignCurrencyYesForeign currency ISO code — MUST match foreignCurrency from price_guard

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

ReadOnlyHint and destructiveHint are correctly annotated. Description adds value by detailing return structure (6 entries, fields) and interpreting results based on payReceive. No contradictions.

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?

Description is well-structured, front-loading purpose and gradually adding details. Each sentence adds value, though slightly verbose in explaining the return array. Still efficient.

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

Completeness5/5

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

No output schema, but description thoroughly explains the return structure and field meanings. Also covers interpretation logic. Fully equips an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds overarching constraint that parameters must match price_guard, reinforcing schema descriptions. Additional context about alignment with preceding call raises value above baseline.

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?

Description clearly states it analyzes historic best/worst FX performance for a currency pair over a Guard's duration, using Bank of England rates. The purpose is specific and distinct from siblings like price_guard or get_spot_rate.

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?

Explicitly states parameters must match the preceding price_guard call, and explains interpretation of BEST/WORST for PAY vs RECEIVE. Provides clear context but lacks explicit when-not or alternative tool mentions.

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 toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct purpose: explanation, rate queries (spot, forward, historic), supported currencies, pricing, extension pricing, and date resolution. No overlap or ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., explain_guard_product, get_forward_rate). Verbs are descriptive and uniform.

Tool Count5/5

8 tools cover the core functionality of pricing and explaining a currency hedging product without being excessive or insufficient. Each tool serves a clear purpose.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers explanation, rate information (spot, forward, historic), supported currencies, initial pricing, extension pricing, and date resolution – a complete workflow for quoting and understanding the Guard product.

Resources