Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

by com.novarithm.www
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

fx_usd_sar

[PAID $0.002 USDC/call, x402, eip155:8453] Official USD/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_usd_sar"
  }
}

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the cost ($0.002 USDC/call), the payment protocol and network (x402, eip155:8453), the data source (ECB), the peg fallback behavior, and that the result is deterministic rather than estimated. It stops short of stating fallback behavior when no fixing is available or what the response envelope looks like.

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 compact clauses with no filler, and every element (price, protocol, source, method, determinism) earns its place. The payment preamble is placed first, which is defensible for a paid endpoint but slightly delays the statement of what the tool actually does.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover both behavior and return shape; it names the returned attributes (rate date, method, source attribution) which is enough for an agent to act. The remaining gap is error/fallback behavior when a fixing is unavailable, minor for a zero-parameter lookup.

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, which is the baseline-4 case; there are no inputs whose meaning could be under-specified. The description correctly implies the currency pair is baked into the endpoint rather than passed as arguments.

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 (USD/SAR reference rate) and precisely what the value is: the latest ECB fixing or the official peg when the currency is pegged. It also names the returned metadata (rate date, derivation method, source attribution), so an agent knows exactly what it is buying rather than guessing from the name.

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 implied rather than stated: the phrase 'official reference rate' and 'deterministic, sourced, no estimate' tell the agent this is for authoritative reference values, not conversions. However, no sibling is named, so there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over fx_convert, fx_latest, or the inverse fx_sar_usd, and no exclusions are given.

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