Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_usd_myr

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the two behaviors that matter most here: a per-call charge of $0.002 USDC via x402 on eip155:8453, and that the value is a sourced fixing rather than an estimate. It stops short of stating update cadence (how often the ECB fixing refreshes) or failure behavior when no fixing exists.

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, front-loaded with the payment banner an agent needs before calling a paid tool, then the resource, then the output content. The bracketed price/x402 preamble is slightly noisy but earns its place for a paid endpoint.

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, the description usefully enumerates the response payload (rate, rate date, derivation method, source attribution), which is exactly what an agent needs to trust and cite the number. Only the freshness cadence and error cases are left unspecified.

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. Nothing in the text muddies the no-argument invocation.

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?

Names the exact resource (USD/MYR) and the exact verb/result (official ECB reference fixing), and qualifies the fallback to an official peg when MYR is pegged. An agent can distinguish this from the hundreds of sibling pair tools purely from the description.

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: it is the reference rate for this pair, so an agent can infer when to pick it over fx_convert or fx_latest. It never states the alternatives explicitly (inverse fx_myr_usd, fx_timeseries for history, fx_convert for arithmetic), nor when not to use it.

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.