Fiat FX rate via the Frankfurter / ECB reference API. Returns the to units per one from unit plus the reference date. Read-only; price 0.0 (free).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | Quote fiat currency (ISO code) | |
| from | Yes | Base fiat currency (ISO code) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses read-only nature, zero cost, and the data source (Frankfurter/ECB). However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, or data freshness, leaving some uncertainty about behavior under edge cases.
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?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences cover purpose, source, output format, and cost. No word is wasted, and critical information is front-loaded.
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 the tool has only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers essentials: data source, input meaning, output shape, and cost. It lacks explicit mention of response format (e.g., JSON), but is otherwise complete for a simple read tool.
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 descriptions already define 'from' and 'to' as base and quote fiat currencies with ISO codes (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the return ratio ('to units per one from unit'), clarifying the semantic meaning beyond the 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 it provides fiat FX rates via the Frankfurter/ECB API and specifies the return format (to units per one from unit plus reference date). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like price_oracle_crypto_price or price_oracle_convert by explicitly focusing on fiat currencies.
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 mentions read-only and free, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Implicit differentiation via 'fiat' is present, but no direct guidance on when not to use it or which sibling to choose for conversions or crypto rates.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, especially the ledger-watch groups with domain prefixes. However, there are near-duplicate utilities such as content_authenticity_domain_reputation and domain_intel_reputation, and fx_tax_convert overlaps with price_oracle_fx_rate/convert. The sheer number of tools also increases the chance of selecting the wrong one, though descriptions are generally clear.
The naming is largely consistent with a <domain>_<action> or <domain>_<watch>_<action> pattern, and all names use snake_case. Minor deviations include standalone names like entity_search, kyb_report, verify_receipt, and the confusing singular/plural pair of sanction_watch_* and sanctions_screen_*. Overall, the pattern is predictable.
With 172 tools, this server is far beyond the typical well-scoped range. It bundles dozens of unrelated utility domains (weather, carbon, CVE, geo, etc.) alongside the Japan public-ledger watches, making it unwieldy for an agent to navigate. This extreme count is a major coherence problem.
For the core Japan public-ledger domain, coverage is excellent: each ledger has search, get, timeline, recent_changes, and verify_ledger, plus cross-ledger entity_search and temporal_query. The unrelated utility areas are also fairly complete for their own purposes, but the server's scope is so broad that some utilities are duplicated (e.g., multiple currency converters). Overall, no critical dead ends in the main domain.