Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_qar_usd

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

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 carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the per-call price, the x402 payment protocol, the chain (eip155:8453), the data source (ECB fixing with peg fallback), the returned metadata (rate date, method, attribution), and the determinism guarantee ('no estimate'). It does not cover failure behavior or update cadence, which keeps it off 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

One dense sentence with the payment/access metadata front-loaded in brackets and the substantive content (source, fallback, return fields) following. No sentence is redundant and nothing is buried.

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 no-param, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies what an agent needs: what is returned, where the number comes from, how the peg fallback works, and what the call costs. Only refresh cadence and error/payment-failure behavior are left unstated.

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 for a parameterless tool applies, with no gap to compensate for.

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?

Names a specific resource and pair ('Official QAR/USD reference rate') and scopes the source precisely (latest ECB fixing, or the official peg when the currency is pegged). That scope implicitly separates it from computed-conversion siblings like fx_convert, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 implied by the zero-parameter, fixed-pair design: call it to obtain the official QAR/USD fixing. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of when to prefer fx_convert or fx_timeseries, and no prerequisites stated beyond the cost line.

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.