Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

by com.novarithm.www
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

fx_aed_php

[PAID $0.002 USDC/call, x402, eip155:8453] Official AED/PHP reference rate: latest European Central Bank fixing (or the official peg when PHP 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_php"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: a $0.002 USDC per-call cost over x402 on eip155:8453, deterministic non-estimated output, and the fact that the response carries rate date, derivation method (direct, cross via EUR, or peg-derived) and source attribution. It omits what happens on missing/stale fixings and any error or fallback behavior.

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?

It is essentially one dense sentence with the payment metadata bracketed up front, so cost is front-loaded before the substance. The middle clause about ECB fixing versus peg is slightly packed but every clause (source, method, date, attribution, no estimate) adds information an agent cannot get from the empty schema.

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 zero-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers source of truth, derivation methods, return fields (rate, date, method, attribution), payment model, and freshness ('latest'). Only failure modes and the concrete response envelope remain unspecified, which is a minor gap for this tool type.

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 nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies the currency pair and rate type are fixed by the tool itself, so no additional parameter meaning is needed.

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?

The description names the exact resource ('Official AED/PHP reference rate') and its provenance ('latest European Central Bank fixing (or the official peg when PHP is pegged)'), which distinguishes it from estimate-based or aggregator-style rate sources. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the many sibling pair tools, but the pair identity plus source 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 only implied: 'latest ... fixing' signals a current-rate lookup rather than a historical series, so an agent can infer it should use fx_timeseries for history. However, nothing tells the agent when to prefer fx_convert (amount conversion) or fx_latest, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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

All Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks toolsInspect
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