Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

fx_xof_inr

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

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 load and does well: it discloses the paid x402 cost ($0.002 USDC/call on eip155:8453), the authoritative source, the derivation method (direct, cross via EUR, or peg-derived), and that values are not estimated. It does not cover staleness on ECB non-fixing days (weekends/TARGET holidays) or error behavior.

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, front-loaded first with the payment/transport tag then the purpose. Every clause adds information; only minor cost is that the billing metadata precedes 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 must convey return contents and it does (rate, rate date, derivation method, source attribution). For a zero-parameter rate lookup this is nearly complete; the remaining gap is freshness semantics around ECB non-fixing days.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description's mention of method and rate date correctly implies these are outputs rather than inputs.

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?

Names the exact resource (XOF/INR reference rate) and pins the specific source: the latest ECB fixing, with fallback to an official peg. An agent can distinguish this from the ~400 sibling fx_* pairs and from fx_convert/fx_latest purely from the description.

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?

The closing phrase 'Deterministic, sourced, no estimate' implies this should be preferred over estimate-based sources, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as fx_convert or fx_timeseries.

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.