Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

by com.novarithm.www
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

fx_sek_pln

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

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?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full load, and it does substantial work: it discloses the paid x402 access model ($0.002 USDC/call on eip155:8453), the data authority (ECB fixing), the fallback behavior for a pegged currency, and the derivation method. It does not describe failure modes (e.g., non-trading day, unsupported peg at a given date) or caching/freshness windows, leaving those gaps.

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 segments: a bracketed pricing/transport tag followed by one dense sentence covering source, method, and returned fields. The essential resource and authority are front-loaded. The pricing tag is dense but the information is load-bearing for an agent that must pay per call.

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?

With zero parameters and no output schema, the description must explain what comes back, and it does: rate date, derivation method (direct, EUR cross, or peg-derived), and source attribution. It also covers cost and transport. Nothing an agent needs before calling is missing.

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, which is the baseline-4 case. The description correctly implies the call is fully determined by the tool identity, so no parameter explanation is needed and nothing is misleading.

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?

States a specific resource (SEK/PLN), the exact object returned (latest ECB reference fixing, or peg rate where applicable), and the provenance. The pair is unambiguous and the name already differentiates it from the hundreds of sibling pair tools. It does not, however, distinguish itself from generic siblings like fx_latest or fx_convert, which is the only missing clarity element.

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?

Implicitly establishes the use case: you want one authoritative latest rate for this specific pair. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no mention of fx_convert, fx_latest or fx_timeseries as alternatives for conversion or historical series. The agent must infer routing from the pair name alone.

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