Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_eur_gbp

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

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 price ($0.002 USDC/call), the payment protocol and chain (x402, eip155:8453), and that results are deterministic, sourced and never estimated, including the peg fallback path. It omits rate limits, freshness/caching policy and failure behavior when no rate exists.

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 dense sentence with a bracketed payment/pricing prefix; the resource and source are front-loaded and nothing is filler. Slightly overpacked with parentheticals (pegged, method list) but still readable in one pass.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the payload contents (rate date, method, source attribution), plus cost and provenance. What is missing is response shape specifics and error/empty behavior, which is meaningful for a paid call.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly frames the call as taking no arguments and instead specifies what the returned rate reflects (date, method, attribution), which is the useful equivalent for a no-arg tool.

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 (EUR/GBP reference rate) and a specific source and semantics (latest ECB fixing, or official peg when GBP is pegged). An agent can tell this apart from fx_latest, fx_convert, or fx_timeseries purely from the text.

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?

Implicitly this is the 'latest single-pair fixing' tool, and the mention of a paid x402 call signals a cost consideration, but no alternative is named. It never says to use fx_convert for conversion or fx_timeseries for history, so the agent must infer routing from sibling names alone.

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.