Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_kmf_chf

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

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 load and does well: it discloses the paid access model (price, x402, network), the authoritative source, the fallback behavior for pegged currencies, the calculation method, and asserts determinism. It stops short of covering freshness/staleness or what happens when no fixing exists for a date.

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 with the cost front-loaded in brackets, then the substantive content. Every clause adds information; the only mild clutter is the bracketed payment metadata sitting ahead of the tool's actual purpose.

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-param, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description supplies everything needed: what is returned (rate, rate date, method, attribution), who publishes it, how pegs are handled, and the access cost. Nothing material for a correct invocation 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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a parameterless call and doesn't waste words restating an empty schema.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Official KMF/CHF reference rate' with the source (ECB fixing) and fallback (official peg). The pair is unambiguous, which is exactly what distinguishes it from the hundreds of 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 (fetch the latest published fixing) but no alternative is named or excluded. Siblings like fx_convert, fx_latest and fx_timeseries exist, and the description never says when to prefer a direct-pair lookup over those, nor whether weekend/holiday calls are expected to fail.

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.

Resources