Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_huf_xaf

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

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the paid cost ($0.002 USDC/call), the x402 payment scheme and network (eip155:8453), the authoritative source, and the determinism guarantee ('no estimate'). It stops short of stating update cadence, staleness of the ECB fixing, or error behavior on unpriced/pegged pairs.

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 bracketed pricing/payment prefix plus one dense sentence covering source, fallback, returned fields, and guarantees. No filler, and the cost warning is front-loaded where an agent will see it first.

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?

For a no-parameter, no-output-schema rate lookup, the description supplies source, fallback rule, derivation-method disclosure, attribution, and payment requirements. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the schema is trivially complete. The description adds useful meaning about what the fixed pair resolves to (ECB fixing vs peg-derived) without any parameter semantics to explain.

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 the exact resource (official HUF/XAF reference rate), the source (European Central Bank fixing, or the official peg when XAF is pegged), and the payload fields (rate date, derivation method, attribution). Against hundreds of near-identical fx_<base>_<quote> siblings, the explicit pair plus source makes selection unambiguous.

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: an agent wanting the HUF/XAF reference rate calls this. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over fx_huf_eur cross-computation, fx_convert, or fx_latest, and no note on freshness or caching that would inform repeated calls.

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.