Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_dkk_chf

[PAID $0.002 USDC/call, x402, eip155:8453] Official DKK/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_dkk_chf"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the paid x402 access ($0.002 USDC/call, eip155:8453), the authoritative source (ECB fixing), fallback behavior (official peg when CHF is pegged), and the derivation method (direct/cross via EUR/peg). Missing are failure/staleness behavior on non-fixing days and weekend/holiday handling, which matters for a rate tool.

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/auth metadata an agent needs before calling, then the rate semantics in one tight sentence. The bracketed x402 boilerplate is dense but earns its place since no annotations cover the paid-access requirement.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers source, method, return fields (rate date, method, attribution), and access cost. Nothing material to calling it correctly is absent.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for; the baseline of 4 applies. The embedded payment metadata is not a parameter but usefully signals the access model.

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 and pair ('Official DKK/CHF reference rate') with concrete provenance ('latest European Central Bank fixing'). An agent can tell this is a single-pair rate lookup, distinct from the fx_convert conversion sibling, without opening the schema.

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 description: use it for an auditable reference rate, and the 'no estimate' / 'official peg' clauses hint at when this is preferred over a derived or estimated value. However, it never names an alternative (fx_convert, fx_latest, fx_dkk_eur) or states exclusions, leaving routing to inference.

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.