Wise MCP Server

wise_get_exchange_rate_history

Read-only

Retrieve historical mid-market exchange rates between two currencies with granularity from minute to day.

Instructions

Get historical mid-market exchange rates between two currencies. group: day/hour/minute granularity.

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": {
      "source": "<source>",
      "target": "<target>",
      "from": "<from>",
      "to": "<to>"
    },
    "name": "wise_get_exchange_rate_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to`	Yes	End datetime (ISO-8601)
`from`	Yes	Start datetime (ISO-8601, e.g. 2026-04-01T00:00:00+0000)
`group`	No	Aggregation granularity. Default day.	day
`source`	Yes	Source currency code
`target`	Yes	Target currency code

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.7Jun 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so description's mention of 'historical' and 'mid-market' adds minimal behavioral context. No disclosure of return format, pagination, or limits.

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?

Single sentence, concise and front-loaded with key information. Could be slightly improved by separating granularity note.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Tool has 5 parameters, 4 required, and no output schema. Description does not explain return format, time range constraints, or behavior for invalid inputs. Missing important context for a historical data endpoint.

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 description adds little beyond schema. The mention of 'group: day/hour/minute granularity' is redundant with the enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'get historical mid-market exchange rates between two currencies' with specific verb and resource. Mention of granularity distinguishes it from the sibling wise_get_exchange_rate which likely returns a single rate.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus wise_get_exchange_rate or alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server