Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_cny_aed

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

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 supplied, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses the x402 payment requirement and chain (eip155:8453), the $0.002 USDC cost, the data provenance (ECB), and that the value is deterministic rather than estimated. It does not cover weekend/holiday carry-forward behavior or failure modes, 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 front-loaded sentence: resource and source first, then the returned fields, then a quality claim. The payment bracket up front is useful rather than noise, though 'Deterministic, sourced, no estimate' partially restates 'Official ... source attribution'.

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, so the description must describe the return; it does by enumerating rate, rate date, derivation method, and source attribution. Missing only edge-case behavior (stale fixings on non-trading days) for full completeness.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4; the description correctly advertises a parameterless call with the pair fixed in the tool name.

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?

Names the exact resource (CNY/AED reference rate), the specific source (European Central Bank fixing) and the fallback (official peg when AED is pegged). The currency pair in the name plus the 'latest fixing' qualifier distinguishes it from fx_timeseries and fx_convert, though the description never says so 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?

Implies usage by describing what is returned (latest fixing, not history), which steers an agent away from fx_timeseries, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of siblings such as fx_latest, fx_convert, or the reverse pair fx_aed_cny.

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.