Skip to main content
Glama

exchange

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Get Rate

get_rate
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the current exchange rate between two currencies (e.g., USD, EUR). Returns the rate value and timestamp.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesTarget currency code (e.g., EUR, JPY, CHF)
fromYesSource currency code (e.g., USD, EUR, GBP)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesTarget currency code (uppercase)
dateYesDate of the rate (ISO format)
fromYesSource currency code (uppercase)
rateYesCurrent exchange rate

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": {
+    "date": {
+      "description": "Date of the rate (ISO format)",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "from": {
+      "description": "Source currency code (uppercase)",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "rate": {
+      "description": "Current 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: +[
+  {
+    "from": "USD",
+    "to": "EUR"
+  },
+  {
+    "from": "GBP",
+    "to": "JPY"
+  }
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by stating the return value includes rate and timestamp, which is beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and no wasted words. Each sentence contributes essential information about scope and return value.

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 full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It specifies the input (two currencies), the output (rate and timestamp), and aligns with the current-rate context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description provides example currencies (USD, EUR) but does not add semantic meaning beyond the schema descriptions for 'from' and 'to'.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'current exchange rate between two currencies', with examples. It is distinct from siblings like get_historical_rate and convert, focusing on current rates.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for current rates via the word 'current', but does not explicitly mention when to avoid it or name alternatives like get_historical_rate for historical data. Clear context but no exclusions.

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