Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_sar_ron

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

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 x402 paywall ($0.002 USDC/call on eip155:8453), the ECB fixing source, that the derivation method (direct, cross via EUR, peg-derived) and rate date are returned, and that values are deterministic rather than estimates. It omits failure behavior for weekends/holidays or missing fixings, which is a notable gap for a rate tool.

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 that front-loads the price and then the substance; almost every clause earns its place. The bracketed payment prefix is slightly noisy but is material information in a paid API.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema lookup, the description covers source, method, date, attribution, determinism and payment mechanism. An agent can decide to call it and knows what fields to expect back.

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 the baseline is 4. Nothing is required of the caller and the description correctly implies a no-argument call.

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 the exact pair ('Official SAR/RON reference rate') plus the source and derivation, so the agent knows precisely which number it gets. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the other ~500 fx_* siblings or from fx_convert/fx_latest, but the pair is unambiguous in the name and first clause.

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: fetch the SAR/RON spot reference. There is no explicit routing to alternatives such as fx_convert (for converting amounts), fx_timeseries (history) or fx_latest, nor any when-not guidance. The paid-call notice at least signals this is a metered single-rate lookup.

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.