Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_try_gbp

[PAID $0.002 USDC/call, x402, eip155:8453] Official TRY/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_try_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 cost and payment rail ($0.002 USDC, x402, eip155:8453), the authoritative source (ECB), the fallback behavior for pegged currencies, and the derivation method. It stops short of describing failure modes or what happens if a fixing is unavailable.

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?

A single dense sentence with the cost/payment tag front-loaded so the agent sees the price before committing. Slightly packed, but every clause (cost, source, fallback, method, attribution, determinism) adds information.

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 zero params and no output schema, the description must describe the payload itself, and it does: rate date, derivation method, source attribution. Cost and payment rail are covered. Only edge-case behavior on missing data is absent.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly adds no parameter noise and instead spends its words on source and return content.

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?

Names the exact resource and scope: the TRY/GBP ECB reference fixing, with a fallback rule for pegged currencies. The pair is unambiguous from name plus description, though it never routes the agent to siblings like fx_convert (arbitrary conversion), fx_timeseries (history) or fx_latest (multi-pair snapshot).

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?

"Latest ... fixing" implies this is the point-in-time rate lookup, and the peg fallback tells the agent what it gets when a direct fixing doesn't exist. But there is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of the obvious alternatives for conversion math or historical series.

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.