Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

by com.novarithm.www
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

fx_xof_cve

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
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 cost and payment protocol ('$0.002 USDC/call, x402, eip155:8453'), the upstream source (ECB), the fallback path (official peg when CVE is pegged), and the determinism guarantee ('no estimate'). It stops short of describing error behavior, staleness thresholds, or 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One dense sentence with the payment tag front-loaded and the substantive content (source, fallback, outputs, determinism) following. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding, though the bracketed cost prefix competes with the purpose for the opening position.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

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 parameters, so the description must describe the return shape — and it does list rate date, method, and source attribution. However, it never states quote direction (XOF per CVE vs CVE per XOF) or the numeric format, which is the one thing an agent cannot infer and must know to use the rate correctly.

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 beyond the fixed pair, which is already stated. Baseline for a parameterless tool is 4; no gap exists here.

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 scope: the official XOF/CVE reference rate from the latest ECB fixing, with a peg fallback. That is clearly more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with siblings like fx_convert, fx_latest, or fx_timeseries, so an agent must infer the difference from the pair-specific name alone.

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: 'reference rate,' 'latest fixing,' and 'no estimate' suggest this is for point-in-time official-rate lookups rather than conversions or history. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to fx_convert for cross-currency math or fx_timeseries for history, which matters given the hundreds of sibling fx_* tools.

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