Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

by com.novarithm.www
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

fx_sek_bgn

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses the pay-per-call price ($0.002 USDC), the x402 payment scheme and the chain (eip155:8453), plus the fact that the value is a sourced ECB fixing and never an estimate. That is strong context. It stops short of describing the payment/settlement flow, failure modes when no fixing exists for a date, or the units/precision of the returned rate, which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the cost/payment tag an agent needs before committing, then the substantive definition. Every clause carries information — source, peg fallback, returned fields, determinism — with no restatement of the tool name.

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 tool the description covers the essentials: cost, payment rail, data source, method of derivation and returned metadata. It is not fully complete because it omits rate units/precision and what happens on non-publishing days (weekends/holidays), which an agent cannot recover from the empty schema.

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 schema imposes no semantic burden and the baseline is 4. The description usefully spends its words on what the call returns instead of on inputs, which is the right allocation for a no-arg 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 (SEK/BGN reference rate), a specific provenance (latest ECB fixing, or the official peg when BGN is pegged), and the returned components (rate date, method, source attribution). Against ~1000 sibling fx_* pairs, the exact currency pair plus named central-bank source makes the target 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?

Usage is only implied: 'Deterministic, sourced, no estimate' hints at when this is preferable to a market-quote or conversion tool, but no sibling (fx_latest, fx_convert, fx_timeseries) is named and there is no explicit when-not guidance. An agent must infer that this is the single-pair official-fixing lookup rather than a general conversion or history call.

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