Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_cad_try

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

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 load and does well: it discloses the paid cost ($0.002 USDC/call), payment protocol (x402, eip155:8453), data provenance (ECB fixing), the peg fallback, and guarantees determinism/no estimation. It does not cover freshness cadence, caching, or failure behavior, which keeps it below 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?

One dense but front-loaded passage with no filler; the payment terms lead so a cost-sensitive agent sees them immediately. Slightly run-on, but every clause carries information.

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-param lookup with no output schema, it names the key returned fields (rate, rate date, derivation method, source attribution). What is missing is update cadence and behavior on non-fixing days, which an agent evaluating correctness might want.

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 for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no argument is needed.

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 the exact resource (CAD/TRY reference rate), the specific source (latest ECB fixing, or official peg when TRY is pegged), and the nature of the value (reference rate, not estimate). The pair is unambiguous, which is what distinguishes it from the many sibling fx_cad_* tools.

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 and by 'no estimate', but the description never says when to pick this over fx_convert, fx_latest, fx_timeseries, or the inverse fx_try_cad. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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