Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_huf_pln

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

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 the price and payment protocol ($0.002 USDC via x402 on eip155:8453), the data source (ECB fixing), peg handling, the disclosed method (direct, cross via EUR, or peg-derived), and that values are deterministic rather than estimated. It stops short of describing behavior on non-publication days or error responses.

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?

A single dense sentence plus a bracketed payment tag, front-loaded with the cost and the resource. Every clause adds information, though the parenthetical about peg-derived methods is slightly crowded.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return payload by naming the rate, rate date, method, and source attribution. Only freshness behavior (weekends/holidays when no ECB fixing exists) is unaddressed.

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. The description usefully makes clear that the pair and source are fixed server-side, meaning the caller supplies nothing and gets a fully determined result.

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-plus-resource: the official HUF/PLN reference rate from the latest ECB fixing, including the peg fallback. The currency pair is fixed by the tool name, so an agent can distinguish this from fx_convert, fx_latest, or fx_timeseries without opening a 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 fixed pair and the 'reference rate' framing, but the description never says when to prefer this over fx_convert (for arbitrary conversions) or fx_timeseries (for history), nor when the ECB fixing is the wrong basis. No explicit exclusions are given.

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.