Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_sar_chf

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

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 well: it discloses the price ($0.002 USDC), the payment protocol and network (x402, eip155:8453), the upstream source (ECB), and that the figure is deterministic and sourced rather than estimated. It omits freshness cadence (how stale the fixing can be) and error/payment-failure behavior.

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?

Two tight clauses with no filler, and the payment/network metadata is bracketed up front so it can be skipped by an agent that does not need it. Slightly dense but every phrase carries information.

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-parameter, no-output-schema lookup, an agent has enough: what is returned, where it comes from, how it is derived, and what it costs. Only the freshness window of the ECB fixing is 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 the baseline is 4; the description adds useful meaning by explaining that the returned record carries a rate date, a derivation method (direct, cross via EUR, or peg-derived) and source attribution.

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 (SAR/CHF reference rate) and pins the source to the 'latest European Central Bank fixing (or the official peg when CHF is pegged)'. That is far more precise than the hundreds of sibling fx_* pair tools, which only differ by currency code.

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 'reference rate' and 'no estimate', which signals a spot/fixing lookup rather than a conversion, but the description never names alternatives such as fx_convert, fx_latest or fx_timeseries, nor does it say when a different tool would be preferable.

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.