Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_krw_xaf

[PAID $0.002 USDC/call, x402, eip155:8453] Official KRW/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_krw_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/Base payment model, the price, peg-versus-float handling, derived methods, and that values are deterministic and non-estimated. It omits the publish cadence of the fixing (business-day release, weekend/holiday behavior) and error behavior, which keeps it from a 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?

The billing/payment tag is bracketed and front-loaded, then two tight sentences cover what the rate is, how it is derived, and what accompanies it. No filler or repetition.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description must describe the response, and it does: rate value, rate date, derivation method, and source attribution. Only freshness cadence and failure behavior are left unstated, a minor gap for a zero-parameter lookup.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly adds nothing about inputs and instead spends its words on what the returned rate represents.

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 pair — the KRW/XAF reference rate — plus the exact source (latest European Central Bank fixing) and the peg fallback, which is more than the name alone conveys. Among hundreds of fx_* siblings the description makes clear both the pair and the authoritative-source nature of the value.

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: 'latest ... fixing' signals this is the current-spot lookup rather than history (fx_timeseries) or an arbitrary conversion (fx_convert), but no sibling is named and there are no explicit when/when-not statements or prerequisites beyond the price tag.

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.