Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_php_sek

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

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 present, the description carries the load and does well: it discloses cost ($0.002 USDC/call, x402, eip155:8453), the upstream source (ECB), peg handling, and the derivation method (direct, cross via EUR, peg-derived). It stops short of stating freshness cadence (how often the fixing updates) or error behavior, which keeps it below 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 plus a bracketed payment tag; front-loaded with the paid/x402 notice, then the core rate description. Every clause carries information, though the payment metadata ahead of the purpose slightly delays the key statement.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies what an agent would otherwise be missing: the rate, its date, the derivation method, source attribution, and the payment requirement. Nothing essential for correct invocation is absent.

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 no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a no-param tool applies. Nothing in the description contradicts or muddies that.

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 and resource: the official PHP/SEK reference rate, sourced from the ECB fixing. Because the tool name encodes one currency pair among many fx_* siblings, the description's explicit pair and source make it unambiguous which tool to pick without opening the schema.

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: 'official ... reference rate', 'Deterministic, sourced, no estimate' signals this is for auditable/reference pricing rather than ad-hoc conversion. It never names an alternative such as fx_convert or fx_latest, nor states when not to use it.

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.