Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_thb_xaf

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
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 price and payment protocol ($0.002 USDC/call, x402, eip155:8453), the upstream source, the derivation method, and that results are deterministic rather than estimated. It omits freshness/latency, caching, and failure behaviour for unavailable fixings.

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, front-loaded clauses with no filler; every element (price, source, method, date, attribution, determinism) adds information. The payment prefix leads before the purpose, which is slightly suboptimal for scanability but not wasteful.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description usefully enumerates what a response contains: the rate, its date, the derivation method, and source attribution. That is close to complete for a single-value lookup; only staleness and error conditions are unaddressed.

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 input is needed beyond the fixed currency pair, and nothing is left ambiguous on the input side.

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 the exact resource ('Official THB/XAF reference rate') and the specific source (European Central Bank fixing), which is enough to place it among the hundreds of fx_* pair siblings. It never explicitly states a verb like 'returns' or 'fetches', and it does not distinguish itself from near-neighbours 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 Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the single-pair ECB lookup and that fx_convert handles arbitrary conversion or fx_timeseries handles history.

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.