Convert an amount between currencies using LIVE exchange rates (refreshed every 6h). Use ISO 4217 codes (USD, EUR, ...). This is the tool to use instead of estimating rates from memory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | Target ISO 4217 code. | |
| from | Yes | Source ISO 4217 code. | |
| value | Yes |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that exchange rates are 'LIVE exchange rates (refreshed every 6h)', which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, or idempotency. With no annotations, the description only partially covers the safety profile.
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 two sentences and immediately conveys the core functionality and a key usage hint. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information (conversion using live rates) comes first. No redundant words.
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?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain the return value (e.g., converted amount). It does not. It also lacks details on handling invalid codes, negative values, or precision. Given the simplicity and sibling tools, the description is incomplete for an agent to use it without additional inference.
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 description coverage is 67% (from and to have descriptions, value does not). The description adds no extra meaning for the value parameter beyond what the schema already provides for from and to (ISO 4217 codes). Since coverage is below 80%, the description should compensate for the undocumented parameter, but it does not.
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 clearly states 'Convert an amount between currencies using LIVE exchange rates', specifying the verb (convert), resource (currencies), and a key detail (live rates). It also mentions ISO 4217 codes, which distinguishes it from sibling convert_units that deals with unit conversions.
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 provides clear context: 'This is the tool to use instead of estimating rates from memory.' This tells the agent when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios (e.g., when offline) or mention sibling tools like convert_units or list_units as alternatives.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: convert_currency handles monetary conversions, convert_units handles other unit conversions, and list_units provides the vocabulary for convert_units. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (convert_currency, convert_units, list_units) in snake_case, making them predictable and easy to understand.
Three tools is exactly right for this domain: one for listing conversions, two for performing conversions (separated by type). No extraneous or missing tools.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of unit/currency conversion: discover available units (list_units), perform conversions for both monetary and other units. No obvious gaps.