Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_usd_mxn

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does well on cost and provenance (x402, $0.002 USDC on eip155:8453, ECB sourcing, direct/cross/peg method), but says nothing about failure modes, rate-limit or latency behavior, update cadence, or what a missing fixing returns.

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 dense sentences with no filler and a compact list of returned attributes. The payment preamble sits ahead of the actual purpose, which slightly delays the front-loaded value, though the bracketed form keeps it from being confusing.

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, the description covers source, calculation method, returned fields (rate date, method, attribution), and cost — enough to call it correctly and interpret the result. Edge cases and freshness cadence are the only meaningful omissions.

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?

Zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a no-argument tool.

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 resource and scope: 'Official USD/MXN reference rate' with the exact source ('latest European Central Bank fixing') and fallback case (official peg). The named currency pair plus source distinguishes it cleanly from the hundreds of sibling pair tools and from estimative services.

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?

The phrase 'no estimate' implicitly positions it against estimated-rate alternatives, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no routing to siblings like fx_convert, fx_latest, or fx_timeseries for conversion or historical needs. Usage must be inferred 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.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.