Skip to main content
Glama

CurrencyGuard Guard Pricing

Ask Whether Your Provider Offers Guards

request_provider_availability

Find out whether Guards can be bought through a particular payment provider or bank. A Guard is always bought through a payment provider, so this cannot be answered without knowing which one the user pays through — CurrencyGuard checks and replies. ASK BEFORE CALLING. Tell the user plainly that their provider, and their email address if they give one, will be sent to CurrencyGuard so they can answer. Call this only after they say yes. The email address may be left out: the provider on its own is a complete enquiry, and without an address there is simply no one to reply to. Never take an email address from earlier in the conversation — only one the user has just given for this purpose. Never call this more than once in a conversation, and never after the user has declined.

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": {
      "provider": "<provider>"
    },
    "name": "request_provider_availability"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailNoAn email address the user has just given so CurrencyGuard can reply. Omit it unless they offered one for this purpose.
providerYesThe payment provider or bank the user pays foreign currency through, as they named it, e.g. Revolut, Wise, Barclays
companyNameNoThe name of the user's company, if they gave it. Omit otherwise.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description carries real weight here and does disclose that the provider and optional email are sent to CurrencyGuard, plus a once-per-conversation rate limit. That is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations, but it does not describe what happens on the reply side (timing, channel, whether a failure is surfaced) or that no state is mutated despite readOnlyHint=false.

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?

Purpose and the consent gate are front-loaded ahead of the parameter rules, which is the right order for an agent. A few clauses restate the same idea ('only one the user has just given for this purpose' echoes the schema) so it is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

With only three flat parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema to explain, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the tool answers, that consent must precede the call, what data leaves the conversation, and the one-call-per-conversation limit.

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 a baseline of 3 applies, but the description adds meaning: it clarifies that email is strictly optional, that 'the provider on its own is a complete enquiry', and that an address must be freshly supplied for this purpose rather than reused from earlier in the conversation. That constrains usage of the email parameter in a way the schema description only partially states.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find out whether Guards can be bought through a particular payment provider or bank.' It also explains the precondition (a provider must be known) so an agent understands the enquiry's scope. It never names a sibling tool such as price_guard or list_supported_currencies, so differentiation is implicit 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 Guidelines5/5

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

It gives an explicit when-to-call gate ('ASK BEFORE CALLING... Call this only after they say yes') plus hard exclusions ('never call this more than once in a conversation, and never after the user has declined'). It also specifies the exact user-facing disclosure required before calling, leaving nothing to inference.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources