Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_eur_xaf

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
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 pay-per-call cost and protocol (x402, eip155:8453), the sourcing (ECB fixing or official peg), determinism, and that no estimates are produced. It does not mention staleness bounds, failure modes, or caching, which keeps it below a 5.

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 with the key claim first, followed by supporting detail on source and method. The bracketed pricing prefix is noise for selection purposes but earns some place as cost disclosure.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

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 imply the return shape. It names rate date, method, and source attribution, but never states the rate field itself or its quoting direction/precision, leaving an agent to guess at the payload.

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 there is nothing for the schema to describe and no parameter semantics are needed. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly implies the pair is fixed by the tool identity rather than passed in.

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 ('Official EUR/XAF reference rate') plus the data source and derivation method, which distinguishes it from the ~500 sibling fx_* pair tools and from fx_latest/fx_convert in the same family.

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: it is the single-pair reference-rate lookup, and the peg clause explains which branch applies. But there is no explicit 'use this instead of fx_convert/fx_latest/xof pair when...' guidance, so the agent must infer selection from the name.

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.