Current USD/KRW exchange rate (ECB reference via Frankfurter, fallback open.er-api.com). Costs $0.005 in USDC per call, settled via x402.
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_usdkrw"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that each call costs $0.005 in USDC, settles via x402, and uses a fallback source. It does not mention response format or rate limits, but the cost and fallback behavior are valuable beyond the schema.
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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the core behavior. The source/fallback and cost details are appended without redundancy or filler.
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?
For a zero-parameter tool, the description is nearly complete: it states the rate being fetched, the data sources, and the cost. It stops short of describing the exact return structure, but the simple nature of the tool makes the expected output reasonably inferable.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers the input surface. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail, and the baseline of 4 applies.
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 identifies the resource: the current USD/KRW exchange rate. It does not use an explicit verb, but it is specific and easily distinguished from the crypto-focused sibling tools. It could be stronger by explicitly differentiating itself from siblings like crypto_krw_ticker.
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 use when a current USD/KRW fiat exchange rate is needed. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over the crypto/KRW siblings or when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough to infer typical usage.
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.