get_spot_rateGet an indicative spot FX rate for a currency pair. Returns rounded bid, ask, and mid rates for illustration purposes only — not for execution. Example: base=GBP, quote=USD returns the GBPUSD rate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| base | Yes | Base currency ISO code, e.g. GBP | |
| quote | Yes | Quote currency ISO code, e.g. USD |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that rates are 'rounded' and 'indicative', and returns 'bid, ask, and mid rates', which goes beyond annotations to disclose behavior without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences that are front-loaded with purpose and essential usage guidance. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given simple string params, no output schema, and good annotations, the description covers purpose, usage limitation, and an example. It is fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% with descriptions for base and quote (ISO codes). The description adds an example ('base=GBP, quote=USD returns the GBPUSD rate'), clarifying order and combination beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get an indicative spot FX rate for a currency pair', specifying the verb (get) and resource (spot FX rate). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_forward_rate and get_historic_best_worst by focusing on the spot rate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'for illustration purposes only — not for execution', providing clear guidance on when to use (indicative rates) and when not (trading). It lacks explicit mention of alternatives but the sibling list provides context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: explanation, rate queries (spot, forward, historic), supported currencies, pricing, extension pricing, and date resolution. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., explain_guard_product, get_forward_rate). Verbs are descriptive and uniform.
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.
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.