DataPorium

get_fx_rates

Read-onlyIdempotent

Currency exchange rates. currency_conversion like 'USD-EUR'. interval picks the bar size (5m and 1h cover recent days, 1d/1w/1mo cover years).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "currency_conversion": "<currency_conversion>"
    },
    "name": "get_fx_rates"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	No	Date filter in YYYY-MM-DD format, e.g. '2026-06-30'.
`filters`	No	Optional extra filters as a JSON object of API parameter names and values, e.g. {"fiscal_year": 2025}. Call list_filters with this tool's name to see every accepted filter.
`interval`	No	Bar size: '5m' and '1h' cover recent days; '1d', '1w' and '1mo' cover years.	1d
`currency_conversion`	Yes	Currency pair as FROM-TO, e.g. 'USD-EUR', 'EUR-JPY' or 'GBP-USD'.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No	The records: a list of objects (or one object) with the requested data.
`note`	No	Present when the answer was shortened, with how to get the rest.
`rows`	No	Number of records the API returned (before any shortening).
`error`	No	Present when the call failed, with the reason.
`detail`	No	Extra error detail from the API, e.g. which filter is required.
`paging`	No	For paged answers: offset, rows_shown, total and next_offset (call again with offset=next_offset for more rows).
`endpoint`	No	DataPorium API endpoint that answered, e.g. /company-info.
`filters_sent`	No	Filters sent to the API for this answer.
`allowed_filters`	No	On an unknown-filter error: the filters this endpoint accepts.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 13, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / paging

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "For paged answers: offset, rows_shown, total and next_offset (call again with offset=next_offset for more rows).",
+  "title": "Paging"
+}

First observedSep 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing behavioral of its own — no note on data coverage, rate limits, or what a bar represents — but it does not contradict anything either, so the lower bar set by rich annotations yields an adequate score.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two compact, front-loaded sentences with no filler, and the core resource is named first. It is efficient, though the redundancy with the schema means the sentences earn less than a full 5.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With a 100%-documented schema, an output schema already present, and full annotations, the description needn't carry much. It is minimally sufficient, but it omits anything about the scope of available currency pairs or how the optional filters/list_filters workflow relates to this call.

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%, so all four parameters, including the enum values and the FROM-TO pair format, are already documented in the schema. The description restates interval coverage and the pair example almost verbatim, adding no syntax or meaning beyond what the structured fields provide — the rubric's baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource precisely ('Currency exchange rates') and the parameter formats make it distinguishable from data siblings like get_commodity_prices or get_stock_prices. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, and it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative tool. The interval sentence reads as parameter documentation (and duplicates the schema) rather than tool-selection guidance, so an agent gets no help deciding between this and other price/time-series tools.

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

All DataPorium tools Inspect

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

Need Help?