Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_dkk_pln

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
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 x402 flow, the price ($0.002 USDC), the network (eip155:8453), and that the result is a deterministic, sourced official fixing with a peg fallback rather than an estimate. It does not explain what happens when no fixing is available or error/failure behavior.

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?

Roughly two sentences with each clause carrying content: price/transport, what rate, and what the response conveys. Front-loading the billing marker is defensible for an agent deciding whether to spend, though it slightly delays the purpose statement.

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, output-schema-less tool, the description covers what is returned (rate, rate date, derivation method, source attribution) and the payment prerequisite, which is what an agent needs to call it. Missing only edge-case behavior (missing fixing, freshness cadence, payment failure) to be fully complete.

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; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument call whose pair is fixed by the tool name.

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?

States a specific resource (official DKK/PLN reference rate) and its source (ECB fixing, or official peg), which is precise and identifiable. It does not differentiate from siblings like fx_convert or fx_latest, though the currency-pair naming in the tool name does most of that work.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as fx_convert (general conversion) or fx_latest (multi-pair snapshot). The only contextual signal is the per-call price, which tells the agent it costs money but not when this pair-specific tool is preferable.

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.