Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_aed_kmf

[PAID $0.002 USDC/call, x402, eip155:8453] Official AED/KMF reference rate: latest European Central Bank fixing (or the official peg when KMF is pegged), with the rate date, the method (direct, cross via EUR or peg-derived) and the source attribution. Deterministic, sourced, no estimate.

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": "fx_aed_kmf"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
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 discloses a lot: paid $0.002 USDC per call via x402 on eip155:8453, determinism, no estimation, and the method/provenance of the returned rate. It does not cover failure modes (what happens if the ECB has no fixing for a date), caching, or the response shape.

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 front-loaded sentence with the payment tag first, then the resource and the provenance contract. Every clause earns its place, though the bracketed payment preamble is slightly dense.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A no-parameter lookup is simple, but there is no output schema, so the description has to explain the response. It names rate date, method and source attribution, though it does not say how those fields are structured, the rate's numeric format or units, or what happens when no fixing exists.

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?

Zero parameters, so schema semantics are trivially complete and the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds that the pair is fixed by the tool identity, so no inputs are expected.

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+resource: 'Official AED/KMF reference rate' with the precise source (latest European Central Bank fixing, or official peg when pegged). It also distinguishes itself from estimate-based tools with 'Deterministic, sourced, no estimate', so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without reading any schema.

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 only implied by the content ('latest ECB fixing'), with no explicit when-to-use or when-not-use guidance. It never names alternatives such as fx_convert, fx_latest or fx_timeseries for historical data, so the agent must infer that this returns only the current fixing for one pair.

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