Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_cad_pln

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

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 supplied, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the paid cost and payment rail ('$0.002 USDC/call, x402, eip155:8453'), the authoritative source, determinism ('no estimate'), and returns metadata about date and derivation method. It stops short of stating failure behavior or staleness limits when no fixing is available.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the cost/rail tag, then the primary purpose, then supplementary metadata. Every clause carries information, though the bracketed payment string slightly competes with the tool's actual purpose for first position.

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, the description covers what is returned (rate, rate date, derivation method, source attribution) and how it is billed. Only edge-case behavior and freshness guarantees are missing.

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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The pair and source are fully baked into the tool identity.

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 resource ('Official CAD/PLN reference rate') and source ('latest European Central Bank fixing'), so the agent knows exactly which pair and which publisher. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as fx_latest, fx_convert, or fx_timeseries, which all touch the same pair.

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 the pair name: call it when you need a CAD/PLN reference rate. The peg clause hints at an alternate data path, but nothing says when to prefer this over fx_latest or fx_timeseries, or when a conversion tool should be used instead.

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.