Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_nzd_cad

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

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 load and does well: it discloses the paid cost and protocol (x402, $0.002 USDC on eip155:8453), the authoritative source, the derivation method (direct, cross via EUR, or peg-derived), and that results are deterministic and non-estimated. It stops short of stating staleness bounds for 'latest' or the response shape.

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?

One dense sentence with the resource front-loaded, followed by the qualifiers an agent needs. The bracketed payment preamble is slightly noisy at the start but is useful, actionable signal for a paid x402 tool.

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 exists, so the description must hint at the return payload – and it does, naming the rate date, method and source attribution. Only the staleness/publishing cadence of the ECB fixing is left unstated for an agent judging freshness.

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 4 applies. The description correctly signals that no arguments are needed by framing the pair as fixed.

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: the official NZD/CAD reference rate from the latest ECB fixing. The fixed currency pair is unambiguous in the name and description, which is exactly what distinguishes it from the generic fx_convert / fx_latest siblings.

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?

The description implies the usage context (single-pair, no parameters, official ECB fixing rather than a market/estimate), but never names an alternative such as fx_convert for actual conversion math or fx_timeseries for historical series. The agent must infer the routing from the pair name alone.

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.