hub-equity-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

convert_currency

Read-onlyIdempotent

Convert amounts between ISO 4217 currencies with ECB reference rates for closing, average YTD, or prior-year financial conversions.

Instructions

Convert an amount between two ISO 4217 currencies using ECB reference rates.

rate_type ∈ {closing, average_ytd, average_prior_year}:

closing (default) → spot rate at date (balance-sheet items per IAS 21)
average_ytd → avg over the 365 days ending at date, a rolling window, not year-to-date (P&L / cash flow items)
average_prior_year → avg over the calendar year before date

date is YYYY-MM-DD (defaults to today). Identity short-circuit when from == to. An unsupported currency code returns an error result. Cross-rates (e.g. USD→JPY) are computed through EUR. fix_date echoes the requested date: the rate used is the latest ECB fixing available on or before it.

Use when the user asks "convert X in Y", "Microsoft revenue in EUR", "what's the average USD/EUR rate for FY2024 P&L conversion?".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`date`	No
`amount`	Yes
`rate_type`	No	closing
`to_currency`	Yes
`from_currency`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: unsupported currency yields an error result, cross-rates route through EUR, and 'date' resolves to the latest ECB fixing on or before the requested date. Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, so this is additive. The stray 'fix_date echoes the requested date' sentence is unexplained noise that muddies an otherwise clean disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with a one-line purpose, then indented bullets that map cleanly to rate_type semantics and edge cases. Slightly long, and the dangling fix_date clause is a sentence that does not earn its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still covers edge cases (unsupported code, from == to, cross-rates, fixing fallback). The one gap is that fix_date is referenced as if it were a parameter or output field without clarifying which, leaving a small ambiguity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does: the three rate_type values are defined with distinct averaging windows (spot, rolling 365 days, prior calendar year), date format and default are given, and the pair semantics include identity short-circuit and EUR cross-rating. Only the trivially obvious 'amount' is left implicit.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Convert an amount between two ISO 4217 currencies using ECB reference rates') and pins the rate source. No sibling tool in the list performs currency conversion, so there is no ambiguity to resolve, and the method (ECB) is named up front.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives both concrete triggering phrases ('convert X in Y', 'Microsoft revenue in EUR') and the semantic rule for choosing a rate_type (closing for balance-sheet items per IAS 21, average_ytd for P&L/cash flow). Since no sibling offers conversion, no alternative needs to be excluded.

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