Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_gbp_chf

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a lot: price ($0.002 USDC/call), payment protocol and network (x402, eip155:8453), data source (ECB), peg fallback, computation method, and the deterministic no-estimate guarantee. It stops short of stating refresh cadence, weekend/holiday behavior, or failure modes.

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?

Two compact sentences with the payment/network banner front-loaded and the data semantics following. Every clause (source, method, attribution, determinism) adds information; the bracketed payment block is machine-oriented but necessary given no annotations carry it.

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

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description still tells the agent what comes back (rate, rate date, method, source attribution) and what will not come back (estimates). For a zero-parameter single-value lookup, nothing material is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description implicitly confirms the pair is fixed by the tool rather than passed in, though it never explicitly says 'no inputs required'.

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 (GBP/CHF) and a specific source and semantics (ECB fixing, peg fallback, method used). The pair is encoded in the name, and the description adds the provenance that separates it from the hundreds of sibling fx_* pair tools.

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 and source; the description never says when to pick this over fx_gbp_eur, fx_convert, fx_latest or fx_timeseries, nor that it takes no arguments. An agent can infer the pair, but routing guidance is absent.

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.