Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_hkd_usd

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

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 load and does well: it discloses paid cost ($0.002 USDC per call via x402 on eip155:8453), the data source (ECB), determinism ('no estimate'), and the peg fallback path. It omits latency/freshness cadence and failure behavior, which are the remaining gaps.

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?

Front-loaded with the payment bracket, then the resource, then the returned attributes. Every clause contributes; the parenthetical method list is dense but informative and not padding.

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, so the description correctly names the returned fields (rate date, method, source) itself. Cost, provenance and determinism are all covered; only error/latency behavior is missing, which is minor for a parameterless read 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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs, so the agent knows invocation is argument-free.

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?

Names a specific resource (official HKD/USD reference rate) and states exactly what it returns: the latest ECB fixing, the rate date, the derivation method and the source attribution. Among hundreds of fx_* siblings the pair is unambiguous from the name and the description confirms it.

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?

Implied usage only: an agent infers 'call this when you need the HKD→USD rate'. It does not mention alternatives such as fx_convert, fx_latest or fx_timeseries, nor does it say when a peg-derived rate should not be trusted over a market rate.

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.