Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

by com.novarithm.www
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

fx_dkk_nzd

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the payment model and cost ($0.002 USDC per call via x402 on eip155:8453), the data source (ECB), the fallback behavior when NZD is pegged, and guarantees determinism with no estimation. It does not cover error behavior, staleness on non-fixing days, or latency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The billing/payment tag is front-loaded in brackets, then a single dense sentence covers source, fallback, and returned metadata, closed by a three-word trust statement. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the name alone.

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-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly sufficient: it effectively previews the response fields (rate date, method, source attribution) and covers payment. Remaining gaps are minor operational details such as rate freshness and failure modes.

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 to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by fixing both currencies implicitly in the tool identity, leaving no ambiguity about what input would be required.

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?

The description names a specific resource and verb: the official DKK/NZD reference rate, sourced from the latest ECB fixing with a peg fallback. That is far more precise than the bare tool name, but it does not distinguish this tool from generic siblings like fx_convert, fx_latest, or fx_timeseries, which also return rates.

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: the phrases 'official ... reference rate' and 'no estimate' signal this is the authoritative figure rather than a computed conversion. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer fx_convert or fx_latest, and no stated exclusions or prerequisites beyond the price notice.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources