Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-knowledge

by io.github.getgapup

fx_rate

Read-only

Get the current or historical foreign-exchange rate for any currency pair — the exact exchange rate, FX rate or conversion rate an agent needs to convert a currency amount or feed a finance, trading, invoicing or pricing workflow. Covers EUR/USD, USD/JPY, GBP/EUR and every ISO-4217 currency pair. Returns the latest spot rate, or a historical rate by date. Use when a workflow needs a precise live or past currency exchange rate, or to convert money between two currencies. Source: European Central Bank reference rates via Frankfurter. Inputs: from/to ISO-4217 currency codes, optional date (YYYY-MM-DD).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesQuote currency, ISO-4217 (e.g. USD)
dateNoOptional YYYY-MM-DD for a historical rate
fromYesBase currency, ISO-4217 (e.g. EUR)
asyncNoIf true, returns a job_id immediately (<200ms) instead of waiting for the result. Poll the result with job_result(job_id). Use for slow tools to avoid client timeouts.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYes
fromYes
rateYes
as_ofYes
sourceYes
source_urlNo

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the data source (European Central Bank via Frankfurter), that it returns latest spot or historical rates by date, and input format. No contradiction with annotations.

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 description is well-structured and front-loaded with the main action. It includes examples, use cases, and source, but is not overly verbose. Could be slightly more concise, but effective overall.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and presence of output schema, the description covers inputs, source, use cases, and historical functionality. It lacks mention of error handling or when to use the async parameter, but overall adequate for the complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description reiterates 'from/to ISO-4217 currency codes, optional date (YYYY-MM-DD)' but adds little beyond the schema, e.g., not clarifying base/quote relationship beyond what schema already says. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states 'Get the current or historical foreign-exchange rate for any currency pair' with a specific verb and resource. It lists example pairs and covers all ISO-4217, making it distinct from siblings like interest_rate or supply_chain_fx_exposure_dashboard.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It explicitly says 'Use when a workflow needs a precise live or past currency exchange rate, or to convert money between two currencies.' This provides clear context but doesn't compare directly with alternatives, though the purpose is well-defined.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All mcp-knowledge toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially in competitive intelligence, ESG, and risk assessment. For example, there are multiple tools for competitor analysis (competitive_deep_dive, competitor_intel, competitor_moves, etc.) with unclear boundaries. Agents would struggle to select the correct tool without deep understanding of subtle differences.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are a mix of English and French, and follow no consistent pattern. Some use snake_case (e.g., abm_architect, action_plan_esg), while others are verb-focused (e.g., content_catalog, fx_rate). The lack of a uniform naming convention makes it hard for agents to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

With 271 tools, the server is excessively large. Even for a broad knowledge domain, this number of tools makes discovery and selection inefficient. Typical coherent servers have 3-15 tools; this has an order of magnitude more, indicating poor scoping.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers many domains (compliance, finance, marketing, HR, etc.), but the coverage is uneven due to redundancy. Key areas have multiple overlapping tools, while some sub-domains may still have gaps. Overall, the surface is broad but not well-curated.

Resources