Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_xaf_eur

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
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 a paid x402 call at $0.002 USDC on eip155:8453, the ECB as source, the possibility of a peg-derived rate, and that output includes rate date, method, and attribution. It does not cover failure behavior, caching, or freshness beyond 'latest fixing'.

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?

The pricing/protocol tag is front-loaded in brackets, followed by one dense sentence and a short credibility tagline. Every clause carries information, though the bracketed payment metadata slightly crowds the primary 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema rate lookup, the description covers source, methodology, peg fallback, and the fields returned. The main residual gap is conversion direction and any statement about rate staleness, which an agent would need to trust the value.

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 adds no parameter noise.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource and source: the 'Official XAF/EUR reference rate' from the European Central Bank fixing. That is far more specific than the name alone, though the pair direction (XAF->EUR vs EUR->XAF) is left implicit and matters in a family of hundreds of fx_* pair tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no reference to sibling tools such as fx_convert, fx_latest, or fx_timeseries. An agent gets no signal on whether to call this fixed-pair tool versus the generic conversion tool, nor any prerequisite beyond the implied payment.

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.