Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_usd_thb

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

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, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the paid cost and protocol ($0.002 USDC/call, x402, eip155:8453), the upstream source (ECB), the fallback path for pegged THB, and the deterministic, non-estimated nature of the figure. It stops short of stating refresh cadence or what happens when no fixing is available.

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?

One dense sentence plus a short qualifier, front-loaded with the key facts (price, source, data returned). Every clause carries information, though the cost/protocol bracket at the very front slightly crowds the actual purpose statement.

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 does the right thing by enumerating what a result contains: rate date, method (direct, cross via EUR, or peg-derived), and source attribution. Only freshness and failure behavior are unaddressed, which is minor for a zero-argument 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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies the pair is fixed by the tool name and requires no caller input.

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?

The description names the exact resource (official USD/THB reference rate), states its provenance (latest ECB fixing, or the official peg when THB is pegged), and implicitly distinguishes itself from the generic siblings like fx_convert and fx_latest by being a single fixed pair with an authoritative source.

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?

It implies usage for anyone needing an authoritative USD/THB rate and rules out estimates ('Deterministic, sourced, no estimate'), but it never says when to prefer it over fx_convert, fx_latest, or fx_timeseries, nor whether a cheaper or free alternative exists in the family.

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.