Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_sek_jpy

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

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?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the paywall ($0.002 USDC/call via x402 on eip155:8453), the authoritative source (ECB), the methodology variants (direct, cross via EUR, peg-derived), and that values are deterministic with no estimation. It omits freshness guarantees (weekend/holiday staleness) and payment/retry behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Single dense sentence with the paywall and source front-loaded, and every clause carries information. The bracketed billing prefix is operationally useful but slightly intrudes ahead of the core purpose statement.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (rate, rate date, method, source attribution) and the cost. What remains missing is only edge-case behavior, such as what happens on non-fixing days or how the peg case is triggered.

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 implies no inputs are needed because the currency pair and source are fixed in the tool identity.

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 verb+resource: the official SEK/JPY reference rate, specifically the latest ECB fixing or official peg. The zero-input, single-pair, latest-fixing framing makes it clearly distinct from sibling conversion/aggregation tools (fx_convert, fx_latest, fx_timeseries) without ambiguity.

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 that this is for authoritative reference-rate needs rather than approximate conversion. It never states when to prefer it over fx_convert or fx_latest, nor any exclusion conditions.

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.