Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_myr_cny

[PAID $0.002 USDC/call, x402, eip155:8453] Official MYR/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_myr_cny"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
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 well: it discloses the paid x402 scheme ($0.002 USDC/call on eip155:8453), the deterministic no-estimate guarantee, and the important fallback that a peg-derived rate is returned when CNY is pegged. It does not disclose error/no-fixing behavior or caching, 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single dense sentence with no filler. The bracketed price/payment tag is front-loaded before the purpose, which is slightly unfortunate ordering for an agent scanning for relevance, but the whole thing is compact and information-dense.

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, no-output-schema lookup tool this covers the essentials: source, method, fallback path, and returned metadata. The missing piece is the base/quote convention and what is returned when no ECB fixing exists, which matters for a rates tool.

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 — baseline applies. The only semantic risk, directionality (whether it means 1 MYR in CNY or the inverse), is left unstated.

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 resource ("Official MYR/CNY reference rate") and pins down exactly what is returned: the rate date, the derivation method, and the source attribution. The currency pair in the name plus this sentence makes the tool's function unambiguous against the fx_* family.

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 European Central Bank fixing" tells the agent this is a spot reference lookup, not a conversion. There is no explicit routing to fx_convert (for amounts), fx_timeseries (history), or fx_latest, and no stated precondition such as market-open/weekend behavior.

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.