Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_isk_cny

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

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 substantial work: it discloses the paid x402 flow and price ($0.002 USDC/call on eip155:8453), the data provenance (ECB fixing vs official peg), and how the rate was derived (direct, cross via EUR, peg-derived). It stops short of freshness/cadence, caching, or what happens when no fixing is available.

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 that front-loads the payment metadata and then the substantive purpose; every clause adds information (source, fallback, derivation method, return fields). Slightly overpacked, but no filler.

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 zero-parameter, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: what is returned (rate plus date, derivation method, source attribution), the payment requirement and network, and the determinism guarantee. Little material 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the fixed currency pair, which the description names explicitly. Baseline 4 applies.

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 precise resource (ISK/CNY reference rate) and its authoritative source (latest ECB fixing, with peg fallback). Combined with the pair-encoding name, an agent can tell it apart from the other fx_* pair tools and from fx_convert/fx_latest without opening anything.

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 only implied: the pair name plus 'reference rate' suggests spot-rate lookups, but the description never says when to prefer this over fx_convert, fx_timeseries, or fx_latest, nor any exclusion (e.g., this is a single current fixing, not historical or arbitrary conversion).

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.