CurrencyGuard Guard Pricing

Get Spot FX Rate

get_spot_rate

Read-only

Get an indicative spot FX rate for a currency pair. Returns a rounded indicative mid rate, for illustration purposes only — not for execution. Example: base=GBP, quote=USD returns the GBPUSD rate.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "base": "<base>",
      "quote": "<quote>"
    },
    "name": "get_spot_rate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`base`	Yes	Base currency ISO code, e.g. GBP
`quote`	Yes	Quote currency ISO code, e.g. USD

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedOct 16, 2026
- addedInput schema / $schema
```
Added value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / base / maxLength
```
Added value: +3
```
- addedInput schema / properties / base / minLength
```
Added value: +3
```
- addedInput schema / properties / quote / maxLength
```
Added value: +3
```
- addedInput schema / properties / quote / minLength
```
Added value: +3
```
Changed1 schema field changedMay 11, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
First observedApr 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the returned rate is an indicative rounded mid, explicitly unsuitable for execution. It does not mention rate freshness or caching, which is the main remaining unknown for a market-data call.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the caveat, then the example. No filler, and each sentence carries distinct information.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape (rounded mid), and the execution caveat. It could go further by naming the sibling to use when an executable or forward rate is needed.

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 the baseline is 3, but the worked example (base=GBP, quote=USD returns the GBPUSD rate) adds directional meaning — it pins down that base is the numerator and quote the denominator, which the schema alone does not state. That is a meaningful increment over the field descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource ("Get an indicative spot FX rate for a currency pair") and the word "spot" implicitly separates it from the forward-rate sibling. It stops short of naming get_forward_rate or price_guard, so the differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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?

"For illustration purposes only — not for execution" gives a negative usage constraint, which is genuinely helpful. However, it never says which sibling to use instead for execution pricing, nor does it point to list_supported_currencies for valid ISO codes, so the positive routing guidance is missing.

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?