Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_chf_isk

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

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 full burden and does well: it discloses the x402 payment requirement ($0.002 USDC/call on eip155:8453), the data source (ECB fixing / official peg), the derivation method (direct, cross via EUR, peg-derived), and that the value is deterministic rather than estimated. It does not state publication cadence, staleness behavior on non-TARGET days, or what the paid call returns structurally.

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 tight sentence with the payment terms front-loaded in brackets, then the substantive claim. Minor redundancy in 'Deterministic, sourced, no estimate', which restates the reference-rate guarantee three ways, but nothing is wasted at length.

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, method, and the fields returned (rate date, method, source attribution) plus the cost. The remaining gap is operational: freshness cadence and how a stale weekend/holiday fixing is signalled.

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; the pair is fixed by the tool name itself. Baseline 4 applies.

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 (the CHF/ISK reference rate) and a specific provenance (latest ECB fixing, or official peg when ISK is pegged). The pair-named tool is trivially distinguishable from other pair tools, though it never names the alternatives an agent would weigh (fx_convert, fx_latest, fx_timeseries).

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 by the currency pair in the name; there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over fx_convert or fx_latest, nor any exclusion such as 'not for historical series'. An agent can infer the use case but gets no routing guidance.

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.