Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_xaf_bhd

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

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 burden and discloses the paid-call cost, payment protocol/network, official source, derivation method, and that the result is deterministic with no estimates. It still omits some operational details such as quote direction, failure/refund behavior, and rate limits.

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?

The definition is compact and front-loads the payment metadata, pair, source, and provenance without filler. Every clause adds useful selection or interpretation context.

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 reference-rate tool with no output schema, the description covers source, method, date attribution, and cost. The main remaining gap is that the exact base/quote convention and returned numeric format are left implicit.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is no parameter-level schema meaning to supplement; the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description does add context about what the parameterless call returns, though it does not clarify the base/quote direction.

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 states the exact currency pair, that it is an official reference rate, the primary source (latest ECB fixing), and the peg fallback. The pair-specific name plus the description make it clearly distinguishable from the many other fx_* siblings.

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: use this when an official/latest XAF/BHD reference rate is needed, including the BHD peg case. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over fx_latest, fx_convert, fx_timeseries, or 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.