Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

by com.novarithm.www
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

fx_usd_xof

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
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 x402 access cost and chain (eip155:8453, $0.002 USDC/call), the authoritative source (ECB), the derivation method (direct/cross via EUR/peg-derived), and states it is deterministic with no estimation. It does not cover failure behavior when no fixing is available or data freshness lag.

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?

One sentence with the payment requirement bracketed up front, then the rate identity, source, method and provenance. No filler, and the most decision-relevant facts (cost, source, determinism) are front-loaded.

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 single-pair rate tool with no output schema, the description covers the important ground: source of truth, fallback for pegged currencies, returned metadata (rate date, method, attribution) and the cost of the call. It stops short of describing the response shape or error/no-fixing behavior, which matters slightly more given there is no output schema.

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. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed, and instead spends its words on the returned rate's provenance.

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 a specific verb+resource pair: the official USD/XOF reference rate from the latest ECB fixing, with the peg fallback stated explicitly. Because the sibling set is an exhaustive per-pair grid, the pair encoded in the name plus this sentence is enough for an agent to know exactly which rate it gets.

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 by the pair naming: call it when you need the USD→XOF reference rate. There is no explicit routing to alternatives such as fx_convert (amount conversion), fx_latest (multi-pair snapshot) or fx_timeseries (history), so an agent must infer those boundaries from sibling names alone.

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