Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

by com.novarithm.www
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

fx_chf_omr

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the paid call cost ($0.002 USDC on x402/eip155:8453), the authoritative source (ECB), that the payload carries a rate date, derivation method and attribution, and that the value is a deterministic sourced fixing rather than an estimate. It says nothing about failure behavior when a fixing is unavailable, caching/staleness of 'latest', or the response shape, which matters for a paid call.

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, front-loaded with the price/transport tag and then the resource and its guarantees. Nothing is redundant, though the bracketed payment tag occupies the most salient position ahead of the actual purpose.

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, output-schema-less tool, the description covers what is returned (rate, date, method, source) and the data-quality guarantee. The remaining gap is behavioral edge cases on the paid path (what happens on an unavailable fixing, whether a stale-date result is still billed).

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 and there is no schema semantics for the description to duplicate or omit.

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 verb+resource: the official CHF/OMR reference rate, plus the source family (European Central Bank fixing) and the fallback case (official peg). An agent can tell it apart from generic siblings like fx_latest, fx_convert and fx_timeseries by the pair-specific naming, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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-specific name and the 'latest ECB fixing' framing. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance naming fx_latest, fx_timeseries, fx_convert, or the inverse fx_omr_chf as alternatives, so the agent must infer routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources