Get live currency exchange rates and convert between 160+ currencies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | Target currency code (e.g. 'GBP', 'JPY') | |
| from | No | Source currency code (e.g. 'USD', 'EUR', 'CAD') | |
| amount | No | Amount to convert. Default 1 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Get' and 'convert' align with a read-only operation. It adds 'live' and '160+ currencies' as useful context, but doesn't disclose potential error handling, rate source, or API limits. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single concise sentence that immediately communicates the core functionality without any fluff. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only currency tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate context. It doesn't explain return value format or how to list supported currencies, but the core operation is clear enough for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% parameter coverage, so the description doesn't need to repeat parameter details. It adds the context of 'convert between 160+ currencies' which hints at the to/from parameters, but doesn't enrich beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'live currency exchange rates' with an added conversion capability. It differentiates from sibling tools like weather and translate, making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when live rates or currency conversion are needed, which is clear in context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternative tools, but given the distinct sibling set, it's adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct capability: chat, embeddings, image generation, speech synthesis, transcription, currency exchange, translation, and weather. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
The five AI tools follow a consistent 'ai_' prefix pattern (ai_chat, ai_embeddings, etc.), but the three utility tools (currency, translate, weather) break this convention, creating a minor inconsistency.
With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for a multi-purpose AI and utility toolkit. The count is neither too sparse nor overly heavy, and each tool has a clear role.
The toolset covers a broad range of AI modalities (text, embedding, image, audio) plus common utilities (currency, translation, weather). Minor gaps exist, such as video generation or web search, but these are not essential for the apparent scope.