Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_inr_eur

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses the x402 payment protocol, price ($0.002 USDC), network (eip155:8453), that output includes rate date, derivation method, and source attribution, and that values are deterministic rather than estimated. It does not mention fallback behavior when no fixing exists or how stale a rate can get.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences plus a bracketed payment tag, all front-loaded: cost first, then what is returned and how it is derived. Nothing is repeated and nothing is filler.

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 the description compensates by naming the returned fields (rate date, method, source attribution) and the peg special case, which is enough to call a zero-argument tool correctly. Minor gap: no mention of freshness/latency or what happens outside ECB publication days.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No arguments are invented or left ambiguous.

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?

States a specific resource and verb: 'Official INR/EUR reference rate' from the latest ECB fixing, and notes the peg case. The pair is unambiguous from the name plus text, but it never distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fx_convert or fx_timeseries that also touch INR/EUR.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not guidance: nothing says whether to use this for spot lookup versus fx_convert for amounts or fx_timeseries for history. The only implicit usage cue is the per-call price, which tells the agent it is a paid endpoint but not when it beats the alternatives.

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.