Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_huf_aud

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: a paid x402 call priced at $0.002 USDC on eip155:8453, deterministic sourcing, no estimation, and a peg-derived method when applicable. It omits operational behavior such as fixing frequency, weekend/holiday behavior, or caching, which matters for a rate lookup.

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 with no filler; the method and attribution details are packed efficiently. The bracketed payment metadata is placed ahead of the purpose statement, slightly delaying what the tool actually returns.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by naming the returned components (rate date, method, source attribution), which is what an agent needs to trust the value. It is only missing freshness/update cadence and error behavior for a no-argument lookup 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 and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a parameterless tool applies.

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 states a concrete resource with both currencies named ('Official HUF/AUD reference rate') and identifies the data source (ECB fixing) and fallback case (peg). It does not name how it differs from siblings such as fx_convert, fx_latest, or fx_timeseries, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit statement of when to pick this pair tool over fx_convert, fx_latest, or fx_timeseries, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. Usage is only weakly implied by 'reference rate' and 'no estimate'.

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.