Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_cad_sar

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
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 well: it discloses the payment mechanism and price (x402, $0.002 USDC/call, eip155:8453), the data source (ECB), peg fallback behavior, and that results are deterministic with no estimation. It does not cover latency, caching, or fallback if the ECB fixing is unavailable, which are the remaining gaps for a paid endpoint.

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?

Effectively two sentences, front-loaded with the price signal then the data semantics; every clause carries information (source, method, date, attribution, determinism). Dense but not padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey the return shape, and it does: rate value plus rate date, derivation method (direct, cross via EUR, or peg-derived) and source attribution. Missing only edge-case behavior such as stale-fixing handling.

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 schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline applies. The description correctly signals that the pair, source and method are fixed by the tool itself rather than passed as arguments.

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 precisely: the official CAD/SAR reference rate, sourced from the latest ECB fixing or the SAR peg. It also distinguishes the nature of the value (a reference rate, not a converted amount), which separates it from conversion-oriented siblings like fx_convert.

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 and the 'reference rate' framing, but the description never says when to pick this over fx_convert, fx_latest or fx_timeseries. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated beyond the implicit paid-call notice.

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.