Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_dkk_hkd

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

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 paid cost ($0.002 USDC/call), the payment protocol and chain (x402, eip155:8453), and the methodology guarantees ('deterministic, sourced, no estimate'). It does not state behavior on missing/stale fixings or whether the rate is cached, so it stops short of 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?

Front-loaded with the price/payment banner then the purpose, and every clause (source, date, method, attribution) adds information. It is dense but slightly crowded into one long sentence, which costs a point on readability.

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, the description usefully enumerates what comes back (rate date, derivation method, source attribution), which is the key missing structure. Remaining gaps are edge-case behavior (no fixing available, peg vs. market rate selection) and response shape details.

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 the baseline is 4; the description correctly adds no parameter discussion and instead spends its words on the returned fields. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 the exact pair named ('Official DKK/HKD reference rate') and pins the source ('latest European Central Bank fixing'), so an agent can distinguish it from the hundreds of sibling fx_* pair tools without opening the schema. It even covers the edge case where HKD is pegged.

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: 'latest ... fixing' signals a current spot rate rather than a historical series, which implicitly routes time-series needs to fx_timeseries or conversion needs to fx_convert, but neither alternative is named. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement is given.

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.