Skip to main content
Glama

exchange

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Convert

convert
Read-onlyIdempotent

Convert an amount from one currency to another at current rates. Returns the converted amount and the exchange rate applied.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesTarget currency code (e.g., JPY)
fromYesSource currency code (e.g., USD)
amountYesAmount to convert

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesTarget currency code (uppercase)
dateYesDate of the rate (ISO format)
fromYesSource currency code (uppercase)
rateYesExchange rate applied
amountYesOriginal amount in source currency
convertedYesConverted amount in target currency

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "amount": {
+      "description": "Original amount in source currency",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "converted": {
+      "description": "Converted amount in target currency",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "date": {
+      "description": "Date of the rate (ISO format)",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "from": {
+      "description": "Source currency code (uppercase)",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "rate": {
+      "description": "Exchange rate applied",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "to": {
+      "description": "Target currency code (uppercase)",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "from",
+    "to",
+    "rate",
+    "amount",
+    "converted",
+    "date"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "amount": 100,
+    "from": "USD",
+    "to": "EUR"
+  },
+  {
+    "amount": 50000,
+    "from": "JPY",
+    "to": "CHF"
+  }
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds useful context that it uses current exchange rates and returns both the converted amount and the rate, which goes beyond the annotation hints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences that front-load the action and result, with no redundant information. Every word contributes meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with three well-documented parameters, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, its scope, and its return values. No critical gaps exist.

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 clear descriptions for each parameter (from, to, amount). The tool description reinforces the meaning but does not add additional parameter details, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Convert' and names the resource ('amount from one currency to another'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_rate or get_historical_rate by emphasizing 'current rates' and the return of the converted amount plus exchange rate.

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?

The phrase 'at current rates' clearly implies this is for live conversions, not historical ones, which provides usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_historical_rate, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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

All exchange 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes with detailed descriptions. Potential confusion exists between similar tools like ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded, but the descriptions differentiate them well. The high number of tools across multiple domains could still cause some ambiguity, but overall an agent can distinguish them.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming patterns are mixed. Some subgroups follow consistent patterns (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*, get_*), but overall the set includes verb_noun (list_subscriptions, get_rate, remember) and noun_verb (entity_profile, deep_research) without a unified convention. The mixture of imperative and descriptive names reduces predictability.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is excessive for a single server, bundling unrelated domains (currency, memory, data query, prediction markets, dependency scanning). This scope could be split into multiple servers for better coherence. The high count may overwhelm agents and increases the risk of misselection.

Completeness3/5

Each sub-domain (e.g., currency, memory, Polymarket) has reasonable coverage with common operations present. However, the server name 'exchange' is misleading—it suggests a narrower focus. Some gaps exist (e.g., no batch currency conversion, no direct Polymarket market detail tool). Overall, the set covers many tasks but lacks a unified purpose.

Resources