Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_pln_ils

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses the x402 payment cost and network, the data source, the derivation method (direct, cross via EUR, or peg-derived), and that it returns the rate date and attribution. It omits failure/staleness behavior on non-publishing days and what payment or error flow the caller should expect.

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 the cost and protocol bracketed up front, then the payload semantics. Every clause carries information, though the parenthetical pricing prefix is somewhat cluttered and the sentence runs long.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers what an agent needs: the value, its date, how it was derived, and its source. For a zero-parameter read of one currency pair, nothing essential is missing.

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; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no caller-supplied currency pair or date is required.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource (PLN/ILS reference rate) and identifies the source (European Central Bank fixing) plus the peg fallback. The base/quote direction is only inferable from the tool name, and the description does not distinguish itself from sibling rates or fx_convert, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

Use is implied rather than stated: calling it a 'reference rate' that is 'deterministic, sourced, no estimate' signals official/accounting use rather than trading quotes. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to alternatives such as fx_convert, fx_timeseries, or the inverse fx_ils_pln.

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.