Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_usd_omr

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses the $0.002 USDC per-call cost, the x402/eip155:8453 payment rail, the data provenance (ECB fixing), and the fallback to an official peg when OMR is pegged. It does not cover failure modes (missing fixing, weekend/holiday behavior) or latency, which keeps it short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single dense sentence with the payment terms bracketed up front, followed by the definition, the source, the fallback, and the output components (rate date, method, attribution). Every clause adds information and nothing is repeated.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-param tool with no output schema, the description functions as the return-value contract: it states the rate, its date, how it was derived (direct, cross via EUR, or peg-derived), and the source attribution. That is everything an agent needs to call and interpret the result.

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. Nothing is required of the agent beyond invoking it, and the description correctly spends no space on input semantics.

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 a precise verb+resource pair: the official USD/OMR reference rate from the latest ECB fixing. In a sibling set of hundreds of fx_* pair tools, the tool name itself plus this description make the exact pair and source unambiguous, and it flags the peg fallback case.

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: an agent infers it should call this when it needs a sourced, non-estimated USD-to-OMR rate. There is no explicit routing versus fx_latest, fx_convert, fx_timeseries, or the inverse fx_omr_usd, and no stated exclusions or preconditions beyond the paywall note.

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.