Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

energy_carbon

[PAID $0.005 USDC/call, x402, eip155:8453] Live carbon intensity of the British electricity grid in gCO2/kWh, actual and forecast, with the half-hour window. For agents that must prove the carbon content of a consumption window.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "energy_carbon"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the non-obvious commercial behavior: paid call at $0.005 USDC, x402 protocol, chain eip155:8453. It still omits latency/freshness characteristics and what happens when payment is absent or data is unavailable, which matter for an agent that may need to retry or budget.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the pricing/payment tag an agent needs before committing to a paid call, followed immediately by what the data is and who it is for.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers what is returned (grid carbon intensity in gCO2/kWh, actual plus forecast, half-hour granularity) and the payment model. Only the freshness/timestamp semantics of 'live' remain imprecise.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add; baseline 4 applies. The description does not confuse this by hinting at optional filters like region or time window that do not exist in the schema.

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 resource and measurement: 'Live carbon intensity of the British electricity grid in gCO2/kWh, actual and forecast, with the half-hour window.' The geography, unit, and payload shape (actual + forecast + half-hour window) are all named, so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling energy_price tool without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit use case: 'For agents that must prove the carbon content of a consumption window,' which frames the decision context well. It never names or excludes the closest alternative (energy_price) and states no when-not-to-use condition, so routing between the two energy tools is left 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.