Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_czk_cad

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

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 burden well: it discloses the paid x402 terms ($0.002 USDC/call on eip155:8453), the data provenance (ECB), that a peg is substituted when CAD is pegged, and that results are deterministic with no estimation. It stops short of stating update cadence, rate limits, or response precision.

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?

Front-loaded with the payment terms in a bracket, then a single dense sentence carrying purpose, provenance, and output fields. The parenthetical enumeration of methods is slightly heavy but every clause adds information about the returned artifact.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by listing the returned components (rate date, method, source attribution). Missing only secondary details such as decimal precision, quoting convention, and fixing cut-off time, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

This tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline applies. Nothing in the description is needed to explain inputs, and it does not waste words inventing any.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource: 'Official CZK/CAD reference rate' from the 'latest European Central Bank fixing'. It also disambiguates what kind of rate it is (direct, cross via EUR, or peg-derived) so the agent knows it is not a generic convertible-currency quote like fx_convert.

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?

The description implies when the tool applies (need for an official, sourced CZK/CAD fixing) but never states it explicitly, nor does it name alternatives such as fx_convert, fx_latest, or fx_timeseries. The pair-specific naming makes selection mostly self-evident, so 3 rather than 2.

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.