Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

energy_price

[PAID $0.01 USDC/call, x402, eip155:8453] Day-ahead wholesale electricity price per European bidding zone (FR, DE-LU, ES, IT, NL, BE, AT, PL, PT, DK...): min, max, average in EUR/MWh, count of negative hours and the 15-minute curve. Signed, so a settlement or a trading decision can be proved later.

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_price"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNoDay in YYYY-MM-DD (default yesterday)
zoneNoBidding zone code, e.g. FR, DE-LU, ES, IT-NORD, NL, BE (default FR)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses the paid model ($0.01 USDC/call, x402, eip155:8453), that responses are signed, and what the payload contains. It does not mention rate limits, error behavior, or data latency, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the payment tag then the core purpose, all in one dense sentence. The parenthetical zone list and metric list are useful, though the single sentence packs several ideas together.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the returned fields and their units (EUR/MWh), covers payment mechanics, and names the zone scope. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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; the description adds value by enumerating supported zones beyond the schema examples (AT, PL, PT, DK) and clarifying that the output is per zone. Date format is left to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: day-ahead wholesale electricity price per European bidding zone, with the exact metrics returned (min, max, average, negative hours, 15-minute curve). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like energy_carbon, but the resource is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by 'a settlement or a trading decision can be proved later', but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g. energy_carbon for emissions data or fx_* for FX). The agent must infer routing.

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.