Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_czk_chf

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

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 and network (x402, eip155:8453), the upstream source (ECB fixing), the peg fallback, and the returned metadata (rate date, derivation method, attribution). It stops short of describing staleness/freshness or what happens when no fixing exists.

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 plus a bracketed commercial tag. The purpose and source are front-loaded after the cost prefix, and every clause (peg handling, method, attribution) adds distinct information. The parenthetical is slightly long but earns its place.

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-param, no-output-schema tool, the description compensates by enumerating what comes back (rate date, method, source attribution) and asserting determinism. The only real gap is freshness semantics — how stale the latest fixing may be — which matters for an FX consumer.

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 schema itself is empty and complete.

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?

States a specific resource with unmissable scope: 'Official CZK/CHF reference rate: latest European Central Bank fixing'. The pair and the source are both explicit, which cleanly separates it from the hundreds of sibling fx_* pair tools and from fx_convert/fx_latest.

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 bracketed cost tag and the phrase 'no estimate' imply this is for authoritative single-pair lookups rather than derived conversion, but the description never states when to pick this over fx_convert, fx_latest or fx_timeseries. Usage is inferable, not prescribed.

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.