Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

by com.novarithm.www
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

fx_eur_krw

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

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 and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the price ($0.002 USDC/call), the payment protocol and network (x402, eip155:8453), the authoritative source (ECB fixing), the peg fallback path, and the returned fields including method and attribution. It also asserts determinism ('no estimate'). What it omits is error/failure behavior when no fixing exists and the freshness cadence of the fixing.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the cost/payment tag before the substance, then a dense single sentence covering source, fallback, returned fields and determinism. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.

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 rate lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers cost, source, method, peg handling and returned fields, which is most of what an agent needs. Gaps are minor: refresh cadence and behavior when a fixing is unavailable are not stated.

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 implies the pair is fixed by the tool identity rather than by arguments, and adds no misleading parameter-like language.

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 precise resource (EUR/KRW reference rate), its provenance (latest ECB fixing, or official peg when KRW is pegged) and its shape (rate date, method, source attribution). It is unmistakably distinct from the hundreds of sibling fx_* pair tools by construction. It stops short of explicitly separating itself from fx_convert, fx_latest or the inverse fx_krw_eur, so an agent must infer that this is a quote lookup rather than a conversion.

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 implied: call this when an official EUR/KRW reference rate is needed. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of when to prefer fx_convert (amount conversion), fx_latest (multi-pair snapshot) or fx_timeseries (historical), and no statement about how often the fixing refreshes. The paid-per-call tag hints that callers should be deliberate, but nothing states it.

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