Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

by com.novarithm.www
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

fx_ron_gbp

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

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 zero annotations the description carries the full burden and does unusually well: it discloses the paid model ($0.002 USDC/call via x402 on eip155:8453), the authoritative source (ECB fixing), the peg fallback, and that output is deterministic with no estimation. It stops short of stating update cadence, behavior on non-fixing days/weekends, or error/fallback behavior when no fixing exists, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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?

A single dense sentence with the payment/access metadata bracketed up front and the substantive definition following. Every clause adds new information (source, fallback, method, attribution, determinism) with no repetition of the tool name or filler.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers return content (rate, rate date, method, source attribution) and provenance well enough to call it correctly. It is slightly thin on freshness semantics (how current the 'latest' fixing is, and what happens around ECB holidays), which matters for a rate tool.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond confirming there is no pair/date input to supply. Baseline 4 applies for a zero-parameter tool.

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 resource (the RON/GBP official reference rate), pins the source (latest European Central Bank fixing, or the official peg when GBP is pegged), and names the derivation method. Because each sibling is a distinct currency pair, the pair naming itself differentiates this tool from fx_ron_eur, fx_eur_gbp, fx_convert and so on; an agent does not need to open the schema to know what it fetches.

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 pair specificity: an agent can infer 'call this when you need the latest RON→GBP rate'. There is no explicit routing guidance to alternatives such as fx_convert for arbitrary conversion, fx_timeseries for history, or fx_latest for cross-pair lookups, and no stated when-not conditions (e.g. historical dates).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources