Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_sek_gbp

[PAID $0.002 USDC/call, x402, eip155:8453] Official SEK/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_sek_gbp"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
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 paid x402/Base payment requirement and price, the response contents (rate date, derivation method, source attribution), and a determinism/no-estimate guarantee. It stops short of stating error behavior, refresh cadence, or how weekends/holidays are handled.

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 compact, information-dense sentences with no filler. The only structure criticism is that the payment/x402 metadata is placed ahead of the tool's purpose, pushing the actual function to the second clause.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description covers cost, source, derivation method, and return fields, which is close to sufficient. It lacks only freshness/edge-case behavior (holiday fixings, cached-vs-live) that an agent pricing a rate might care about.

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 correctly signals a no-argument call by specifying the currency pair in the name itself, leaving nothing for the agent to supply.

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?

The description names a specific resource (SEK/GBP) and a specific verb-like action (return the latest ECB fixing), plus the fallback case of an official peg. It is unambiguous for an agent, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as fx_convert, fx_latest, or fx_timeseries.

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: an agent can infer 'call this to get the current SEK/GBP rate.' There is no explicit when-to-use versus fx_convert (conversion) or fx_timeseries (history), and no note on when the peg branch applies beyond a parenthetical.

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.