Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Exchange

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get Historical Rate

get_historical_rate
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the exchange rate between two currencies on a specific date (format: YYYY-MM-DD). Returns the historical rate and date.

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "to": "EUR",
      "date": "2023-01-15",
      "from": "USD"
    },
    "name": "get_historical_rate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesTarget currency code (e.g., EUR)
dateYesDate in YYYY-MM-DD format (earliest available: 1999-01-04)
fromYesSource currency code (e.g., USD)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesTarget currency code (uppercase)
dateYesDate of the historical rate (YYYY-MM-DD)
fromYesSource currency code (uppercase)
rateYesHistorical exchange rate

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "date": {
+      "description": "Date of the historical rate (YYYY-MM-DD)",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "from": {
+      "description": "Source currency code (uppercase)",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "rate": {
+      "description": "Historical exchange rate",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "to": {
+      "description": "Target currency code (uppercase)",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "from",
+    "to",
+    "rate",
+    "date"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "date": "2023-01-15",
+    "from": "USD",
+    "to": "EUR"
+  },
+  {
+    "date": "2020-06-30",
+    "from": "GBP",
+    "to": "JPY"
+  }
+]
  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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by disclosing the return behavior ('Returns the historical rate and date') and reiterating the date format (YYYY-MM-DD), which provides context beyond the structured annotations. No contradictions exist.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, then adds the key constraints and return info. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 read-only tool with three parameters, a fully described schema, and an output schema mentioned, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, the input date format, and the return values. Annotations cover safety, so no additional behavioral context is needed. The tool is well-specified for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The input schema provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters with examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning by mentioning 'between two currencies' (clarifying from/to) and the date format, but it mostly restates what the schema already contains. It does not introduce any new parameter insights.

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 the tool's specific function: 'Get the exchange rate between two currencies on a specific date'. It uses a specific verb ('get') and identifies the resource (historical exchange rate) and the key differentiator (specific date). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_rate' (current rate) and 'convert', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 description clearly establishes when to use this tool (for historical rates on a specific date) by emphasizing the date parameter. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like 'get_rate' for current rates, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer the use case. No exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios are stated, which is a minor gap.

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
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources