Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_hkd_sek

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

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 load well: it discloses the cost ($0.002 USDC), the payment protocol and chain (x402, eip155:8453), the data provenance (ECB fixing, peg fallback), the derivation method, and the 'no estimate' guarantee. It does not cover freshness/caching, failure behavior, or whether a funded wallet must be pre-configured.

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 plus a bracketed pricing prefix. Front-loading the price is useful for an agent budgeting a paid call, and no sentence is wasted, though the single long clause chains several ideas (peg, method, attribution) together.

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 and no annotations, so the description must stand alone, and it does reasonably: cost, source, method and the presence of a rate date are all disclosed. It stops short of naming the return fields or value precision, which would matter for a paid, schema-less tool.

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; there is no parameter meaning to add. The description's mention of rate date, method and source describes outputs rather than inputs, which is still useful but slightly out of scope for this dimension.

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 verb and resource: 'Official HKD/SEK reference rate: latest European Central Bank fixing', plus the peg fallback. The currency pair is encoded in the name, so an agent can distinguish it from the thousands of other fx_* pair siblings without opening the schema.

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 by the resource ('latest fixing'), but the description never says when to pick this over fx_hkd_sek-adjacent tools such as fx_latest, fx_convert or fx_timeseries. No exclusions or prerequisites for the payment flow are stated beyond the price tag.

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.