Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_pln_idr

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

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 so well: it discloses the pay-per-call cost and payment protocol (x402, eip155:8453), the data source (ECB), and the exact rate method (direct, cross via EUR, or peg-derived). It does not cover error/failure behavior or staleness limits beyond 'latest fixing'.

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 prefixed by the payment/cost bracket, front-loaded with the priced-call signal then the purpose. Everything stated (rate date, method, attribution, deterministic/no estimate) is substantive, though the bracket prefix is meta rather than descriptive.

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-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately describes the return payload (rate, rate date, method, source attribution) and the pricing requirement. Minor gaps: no base/quote ordering statement and no failure-mode behavior.

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 4 applies. The description implicitly confirms the call takes no arguments by fully specifying the pair and output fields.

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 PLN/IDR reference rate from the latest ECB fixing, including the fallback peg case. The currency pair in the description matches the name and cleanly separates it from the hundreds of sibling fx_* pair tools (which differ only by pair, e.g. fx_idr_pln).

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 by the resource name; there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over fx_convert, fx_latest, or fx_timeseries, and no note that fx_idr_pln is the inverse pair. The paid-call framing does implicitly reserve it for reference-rate lookups rather than conversions.

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.