Convert an amount from one currency to another at current exchange rates. Sources: ECB + 84 central banks. Free for commercial use.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | No | Amount to convert (e.g. 100, 2500.50). Default: 1.0 | |
| to_currency | No | Target currency code (e.g. EUR, JPY, BRL). Default: EUR | |
| from_currency | No | Source currency code (e.g. USD, EUR, GBP). Default: USD |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source for behavioral traits. It mentions sources (ECB + 84 central banks) and free commercial use, but omits key details such as rate update frequency, rounding behavior, or any limitations (e.g., maximum amounts). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: two sentences with front-loaded purpose ('Convert an amount...') followed by essential source details. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given three optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides minimal but adequate context for a simple conversion tool. However, it lacks details on return format, error handling, or rate source freshness, making it insufficient for complex use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond the schema defaults (e.g., amount default 1.0). Since schema covers all parameters adequately, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the tool converts an amount between currencies at current exchange rates, clearly identifying the verb 'convert' and the resource (amount, currencies). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fx_get_rates or fx_list_currencies by focusing on conversion rather than rate listing or currency listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for currency conversion at current rates, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like fx_get_pair_rate or batch_query. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, relying on implied context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tool groups have overlapping purposes: fda_drug_labels vs health_drug_search, fda_recalls vs health_recalls, fx_official_rates vs treasury_fx_rates, treasury_debt vs us_debt_current, and get_gdp vs get_bea_gdp. These near-duplicates create real ambiguity for an agent deciding which tool to call.
Names mix verb-led styles (get_, search_, compare_, screen_) with domain-led styles (fx_, treasury_, uk_, health_, eurostat_, datausa_). Within the same domain, similar actions use different patterns (get_gdp vs eurostat_gdp vs imf_indicator), making the set feel inconsistent and hard to predict.
75 tools is extreme for any MCP server, especially when many tools are redundant or cover unrelated domains (weather, earthquakes, scholarly search, air quality) outside the stated SEC/economics/demographics/FX focus. This overwhelms agents and burdens context windows.
Core domains like SEC financials, major economic indicators, basic demographics, and current FX rates are well covered. However, gaps remain: no historical FX rates, no stock price/quote tool, limited demographic breakdowns, and no ability to fetch full SEC filing text. Some operations end in dead ends.