Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_chf_qar

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

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 price ($0.002 USDC/call), the payment protocol (x402, eip155:8453), the authoritative source (ECB), the peg fallback, and that values are deterministic with no estimation. It omits failure behavior (e.g., weekends/holidays with no fresh fixing) and any rate-limit or caching details.

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?

The payment/pricing bracket is front-loaded and the core sentence is tightly packed with only relevant facts. The single long sentence is dense but every clause (date, method, attribution, no-estimate) contributes 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (rate date, method, source attribution) and the payment requirement. Only edge-case behavior — stale-fixing handling and error shape — is left unstated.

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 no parameters, so there is no schema semantics to add; the fixed currency pair is encoded in the name and restated in the description. Baseline 4 applies for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

The description names a specific resource (the official CHF/QAR reference rate) and its provenance (latest ECB fixing, or the official peg when QAR is pegged). It is unambiguous which of the many fx_* sibling pairs it serves, since the pair is fixed and no parameters are involved.

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 wanting a CHF/QAR reference rate will pick this. Nothing states when to prefer fx_convert, fx_latest, or fx_timeseries instead, nor any exclusion such as using it for spot conversion rather than reference data.

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.