Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

by com.novarithm.www
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

fx_try_sar

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

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 supplied, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the paid x402 flow, exact price ($0.002 USDC), settlement network (eip155:8453), and data guarantees (deterministic, sourced, no estimate, rate date and attribution returned). What it leaves out is staleness/publishing cadence and fallback behavior on weekends or ECB holidays, which matter for a fixing-based rate.

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 no filler, and every clause adds information. The payment preamble comes first rather than the resource identity, which is slightly suboptimal front-loading for a tool-selection decision, but nothing is wasted.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers cost, provenance, computation method, and the categories of returned metadata (rate, date, method, attribution). Only the precise response field names and freshness guarantees are missing, which is a minor gap at this complexity.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies the pair is fixed by the tool identity rather than supplied at call time.

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 (TRY/SAR reference rate), its provenance (ECB fixing, or the official peg when SAR is pegged), and the resolution method (direct, cross via EUR, or peg-derived). It does not, however, distinguish itself from alternatives such as fx_convert or fx_latest, so an agent must infer the pair-matrix convention from the name alone.

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: the pair in the name tells the agent which currencies, and 'deterministic, sourced, no estimate' hints at authoritative-rate use cases. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to a sibling like fx_convert for actual amount conversion rather than rate retrieval.

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