Geo-Parity

Cost of sending money home, by corridor

remittance_cost

Read-onlyIdempotent

What it costs to send money from one country to another, from the World Bank's Remittance Prices Worldwide survey (newest quarter, CC BY 4.0): the mean total cost — fee plus exchange-rate margin — of sending USD 200 and USD 500 across the providers surveyed on that corridor, the cheapest provider found, and how many were surveyed. With amount (USD), a quote at the nearer of the two surveyed bands (below USD 350 uses the 200 figures), and the response says which. Give from AND to for one corridor; only one of them for a ranking of surveyed corridors out of a sender or into a receiver, cheapest first. The survey covers ~350 high-volume corridors (~46 sending countries, ~96 receiving); a pair it does not survey returns NO_DATA, never a figure borrowed from a neighbour. Your own quote will differ by provider, payment method and day.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to`	No	Receiving country, ISO alpha-2 (e.g. "IN").
`from`	No	Sending country, ISO alpha-2 (e.g. "GB").
`sort`	No	Ranking direction when only one of `from`/`to` is given.	lowest
`limit`	No	Return at most this many corridors in a ranking.
`amount`	No	Amount to send, USD. Optional; without it the corridor's survey figures are returned unquoted.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	No
`rows`	No
`quote`	No
`period`	No
`caveats`	No
`corridor`	No
`providers`	No
`attribution`	No
`avgCost200Pct`	No
`avgCost500Pct`	No
`cheapestCost200Pct`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 1, 2026

addedInput schema / examples

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "amount": 500,
+    "from": "GB",
+    "to": "IN"
+  }
+]

AddedSep 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds real behavioral context: NO_DATA rather than a borrowed neighbour figure for unsurveyed corridors, coverage scale (~350 corridors, ~46 sending, ~96 receiving), data vintage (newest quarter), and the honest caveat that the caller's own quote will vary by provider, method and day.

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?

A single dense paragraph, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the usage rules. Every sentence carries load (source, metric, modes, NO_DATA, caveat), though the length pushes it toward reference-text density rather than quick scanning.

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 an output schema present, return values need no further explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description still supplies the coverage limits, NO_DATA guarantee, banding logic and freshness caveat, leaving an agent nothing material missing before calling it.

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 description adds meaning the schema lacks: how `amount` selects the nearer surveyed band and that the response reports which, and how the presence/absence of `from`/`to` switches between corridor lookup and ranking. This meaningfully enriches all five parameters rather than repeating them.

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?

States a specific verb-and-resource (the cost of sending money from one country to another) and pins the scope exactly: World Bank RPW survey, newest quarter, mean total cost of USD 200/500, cheapest provider, count surveyed. An agent knows precisely what data this returns and on which corridors, which is well beyond a restatement of the name.

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 defines the two invocation modes: both `from` and `to` for one corridor, only one for a cheapest-first ranking, plus the `amount` banding rule (below USD 350 uses the 200 figures). It also states the when-not case (unsurveyed pairs return NO_DATA). It does not name a sibling alternative, so it stops just short of a 5.

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

All Geo-Parity 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?