Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_chf_idr

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

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 requirement ($0.002 USDC/call, x402, eip155:8453), the data vintage (latest fixing with a rate date), the derivation method (direct, cross via EUR, or peg-derived), and that values are deterministic and sourced rather than estimated. It omits caching/freshness windows and rate-limit 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?

One dense sentence after the bracketed payment prefix; every clause (source, peg fallback, rate date, method, attribution, determinism) adds information. The cost/chain metadata leads, which is useful but slightly buries the purpose statement.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned elements (rate, rate date, method, source attribution). Remaining gap is the quotation direction (units of IDR per 1 CHF), which is conventional but never stated.

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. It does implicitly answer the only remaining question an agent could have about invocation by fixing both currencies in advance.

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 (official CHF/IDR reference rate) with its exact provenance (latest ECB fixing, or official peg when IDR is pegged). The currency pair plus source makes it unambiguous against the hundreds of sibling fx_* pair 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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for the CHF/IDR rate, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over fx_convert, fx_latest, or fx_timeseries, nor any note about what it cannot do (e.g., converting an amount).

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.