get_ratesLatest or a single day's exchange rates. The raw-rate companion to convert.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| base | No | ISO 4217 base currency. Default EUR. | |
| date | No | Single day YYYY-MM-DD. Omit for the latest rates. | |
| quotes | No | ISO 4217 quote codes to return; omit for all. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / date / descriptionPrevious value: -"Single day YYYY-MM-DD. Mutually exclusive with start/end."New value: +"Single day YYYY-MM-DD. Omit for the latest rates."Input schema / properties / endRemoved value: -{
- "$ref": "#/properties/date",
- "description": "Range end YYYY-MM-DD (inclusive). Requires start and quotes."
-}Input schema / properties / providersRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Provider keys. Omit for blended (default).",
- "items": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "type": "array"
-}Input schema / properties / quotes / descriptionPrevious value: -"ISO 4217 quote codes. Required when start/end is set."New value: +"ISO 4217 quote codes to return; omit for all."Input schema / properties / startRemoved value: -{
- "$ref": "#/properties/date",
- "description": "Range start YYYY-MM-DD (inclusive). Requires end and quotes."
-}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context as a raw-rate companion and the ability to fetch latest or specific date rates, which is consistent and adds value.
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 with two short sentences, no unnecessary words, and front-loads the core purpose.
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 the low complexity and good annotations/schema, the description covers purpose and sibling relation. It could optionally mention the output format (e.g., exchange rates map) but is not severely lacking.
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 detailed parameter descriptions (ISO 4217, date format, etc.), so the tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, meeting the baseline.
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 it gets exchange rates (latest or single day) and explicitly distinguishes itself as the 'raw-rate companion to convert', differentiating from the sibling tool.
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 via the 'raw-rate companion' hint, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance beyond the sibling 'convert'. It does not address the 'list_currencies' sibling.
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.