Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

by com.novarithm.www
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

fx_dkk_try

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the payment model ($0.002 USDC/call via x402 on eip155:8453), the upstream authority (ECB fixing), the derivation method (direct, cross via EUR, or peg-derived), and asserts determinism with no estimation. It stops short of describing failure/absence behavior (e.g. weekends, holidays, stale fixing) or how a pegged rate differs structurally from a market rate.

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 front-loaded sentence that puts the resource first, then the source and method, then the determinism guarantee. The bracketed price/x402 prefix is dense but genuinely actionable for an agent deciding whether to spend. No filler sentences.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return content, and it does list the fields a caller can expect (rate, rate date, method, source attribution). That is close to complete for a zero-parameter rate lookup; missing only the value's numeric convention (e.g. TRY per 1 DKK) which an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument call by hard-coding the currency pair in 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?

The description names a specific resource and pair ('Official DKK/TRY reference rate') and states the exact source (European Central Bank fixing) plus fallback behavior for a pegged TRY. It is unambiguous what a caller gets, though it never mentions the numerous sibling pair tools (fx_dkk_eur, fx_convert, fx_latest) that an agent must choose between.

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 by the pair in the name — an agent infers 'call this when you need DKK to TRY'. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no pointer to fx_convert (arbitrary pairs), fx_latest (multi-pair snapshot) or fx_timeseries, all of which are plausible alternatives in this crowded sibling set.

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