Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_isk_xaf

[PAID $0.002 USDC/call, x402, eip155:8453] Official ISK/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_isk_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 burden and does well: it discloses the paid x402 flow ($0.002 USDC on eip155:8453), which is essential auth/cost context, plus the non-obvious peg-derived behavior and a determinism guarantee. It does not describe error cases or the response payload shape, which keeps it below 5.

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 compact clauses: the pricing/protocol tag then a single dense sentence covering source, method and guarantees. Nothing is redundant and the key qualifier (ECB fixing, peg fallback) appears early.

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-param, no-output-schema tool it covers source, method, determinism and cost. The notable omission is the quote direction (ISK per XAF vs XAF per ISK) and units/precision, which matters for an FX rate with no output schema to disambiguate it.

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 correctly implies the pair is fixed by the tool itself rather than passed in. There is no parameter semantics to add.

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 ISK/XAF reference rate) and qualifies it with the source (European Central Bank fixing) and the peg fallback, which is far more specific than the bare pair name. An agent can tell this apart from fx_convert, fx_latest or fx_timeseries without opening any 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 only implied: the word 'reference' plus 'deterministic, sourced, no estimate' signals this is for authoritative single-pair lookups, not amount conversion. It never explicitly says when to prefer it over fx_convert, fx_latest or fx_timeseries, nor does it state any preconditions.

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.