Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_jpy_php

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

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 behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the $0.002 USDC cost, x402 protocol, eip155:8453 chain, official ECB source, peg fallback, returned fields (rate date, method, source attribution), and determinism. It does not cover auth setup details beyond x402, rate limits, or error behavior.

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?

The description is dense but front-loaded: payment context first, then the exact rate resource, then return details. Every clause adds useful information, and the closing 'Deterministic, sourced, no estimate' reinforces the tool's key guarantee without waste.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the data source, fallback method, return fields, payment requirement, and determinism. It could be stronger by explicitly naming the numeric rate value or describing error conditions, but the essential context is present.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a 0-parameter definition is 4.

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?

The description identifies the exact resource ('Official JPY/PHP reference rate') and its source ('latest European Central Bank fixing'), along with fallback behavior when PHP is pegged. This makes it immediately distinguishable from the many sibling fx pair tools.

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 exact currency pair, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this versus fx_convert, fx_latest, fx_timeseries, or when not to use it. It states the paid cost, which is useful context, but leaves alternatives unaddressed.

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.