Skip to main content
Glama

convert_currency

Converts an amount between currencies using the SBI TT buying rate for a specified date.

Instructions

Convert an amount using the SBI TT buying rate on the given date.

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": {
      "amount": "<amount>",
      "from_currency": "<from_currency>",
      "to_currency": "<to_currency>",
      "on_date": "<on_date>"
    },
    "name": "convert_currency"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
amountYes
on_dateYes
to_currencyYes
from_currencyYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the rate source and that the rate is date-dependent, which is the key behavioral fact, but says nothing about unsupported currency pairs, rounding, weekend/holiday rate handling, or failure behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the rate basis is stated immediately after the verb. Brevity is appropriate, though the space saved could have been used for the missing parameter and usage detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a four-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves the currency-code conventions and rate-availability edge cases unaddressed, making it only adequate.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across four required parameters, so the description must compensate. It only loosely gestures at 'amount' and 'given date' and says nothing about currency code format (ISO 4217?), date format, or whether string amounts are accepted — despite the schema allowing number or string for amount.

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?

States a specific verb (convert), resource (amount between currencies), and even the rate basis (SBI TT buying rate on a given date), which pins down the semantics precisely. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, though all siblings are tax-computation tools so confusion risk is low.

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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only implicit guidance is that the conversion is bound to the SBI TT buying rate rather than a market or other published rate, which an agent must infer.

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