Argentine exchange rates for AI agents.
MCP server that gives AI agents real-time access to Argentine exchange rates via DolarAPI. Dollar blue, oficial, MEP, CCL, crypto — plus currency conversion and spread calculator.
No API key required.
Add to your claude_desktop_config.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"dolar": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@dan1d/dolar-mcp"]
}
}
}claude mcp add dolar -- npx -y @dan1d/dolar-mcpAdd to .cursor/mcp.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"dolar": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@dan1d/dolar-mcp"]
}
}
}{
"mcpServers": {
"dolar": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@dan1d/dolar-mcp"]
}
}
}Once configured, ask your AI assistant things like: "How much is the dollar blue today?" or "Convert 100 USD blue to ARS" or "What's the spread between blue and oficial?"
Related MCP server: dolar-argentina
Tool | Description |
| Get all dollar exchange rates: blue, oficial, bolsa (MEP), contado con liqui (CCL), cripto, mayorista, and tarjeta. Returns buy/sell prices. |
| Get a specific dollar type rate. Types: |
| Get all foreign currency exchange rates vs ARS (EUR, BRL, UYU, CLP, etc.). |
| Get exchange rate for a specific foreign currency vs ARS. |
| Convert an amount between ARS and any currency or dollar type. At least one side must be ARS. Supports |
| Calculate the spread (difference) between two dollar types, e.g. blue vs oficial. Returns absolute and percentage spread. |
"Dame todas las cotizaciones del dolar"
"Cuanto sale el dolar blue hoy?"
"Converti 500 USD blue a pesos"
"Cual es la brecha entre el oficial y el blue?"
"Cuanto esta el euro?"
"Converti 1000 EUR a ARS"
npm install @dan1d/dolar-mcpimport { createDolarTools } from "@dan1d/dolar-mcp";
const dolar = createDolarTools();
// Get all dollar rates
const rates = await dolar.tools.get_all_dollars();
// Get blue dollar specifically
const blue = await dolar.tools.get_dollar({ type: "blue" });
// Convert 100 USD blue to ARS
const converted = await dolar.tools.convert({
amount: 100,
from: "blue",
});
// Calculate spread between oficial and blue
const spread = await dolar.tools.get_spread({
type_a: "oficial",
type_b: "blue",
});All data comes from DolarAPI, a free public API for Argentine exchange rates. No authentication required. Data is updated in real time.
Server | What it does |
Mercado Pago payments — create links, search payments, refunds | |
MercadoLibre marketplace — search products, categories, trends | |
DolarAPI MCP | Argentine exchange rates — blue, oficial, CCL, crypto, conversion |
Convert an amount between ARS and any currency or dollar type. At least one side must be ARS.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | Yes | Amount to convert | |
| from | Yes | Source currency/dollar type (e.g. USD, blue, EUR, ARS) | |
| to | No | Target currency (default: ARS) | |
| use_buy | No | Use buy rate instead of sell rate (default: false) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotence, rate limits, error handling, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a conversion tool.
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?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and constraint. No unnecessary information is included.
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?
The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not mention return values, error conditions, or supported currency types beyond examples in the schema. While functional, it leaves gaps in completeness.
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 input schema has full description coverage (100%), so the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the constraint 'at least one side must be ARS'. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 tool's purpose: converting an amount between ARS and other currencies/dollar types. It specifies that at least one side must be ARS, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve currency data without conversion.
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 provides a clear constraint (at least one side must be ARS) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives. However, siblings are query tools, so the conversion purpose is inherently distinct.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get all foreign currency exchange rates vs ARS (EUR, BRL, UYU, CLP, etc.).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description is minimal—it only states the basic function. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as data freshness, rate limits, or return format. Given the lack of annotations, the description should provide more transparency.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No extraneous information; it is front-loaded and efficient.
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 parameterless tool, the description adequately covers the purpose and expected output (foreign exchange rates vs ARS). Although no output schema exists, the description hints at the result set. It does not explicitly state the return structure, but given the simplicity, it is nearly complete.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). According to guidelines, baseline is 4. The description appropriately adds no parameter-specific info since none exist.
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 identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving all foreign currency exchange rates relative to ARS, with examples of currencies (EUR, BRL, UYU, CLP, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_currency (single currency) and get_all_dollars (dollar-specific rates).
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_currency, get_all_dollars). No explicit context or when-not-to-use instructions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get all Argentine dollar exchange rates: blue, oficial, bolsa (MEP), contado con liqui (CCL), cripto, mayorista, and tarjeta. Returns buy/sell prices.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool returns prices, implying read-only behavior, but does not explicitly confirm safety or disclose any side effects, auth needs, or rate limits.
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, well-structured sentence that efficiently lists all types and return value. Every phrase adds value.
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?
Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (buy/sell prices). Sibling tools exist but differentiation is clear. Lacks mention of data format or additional details, but sufficient for a simple list.
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?
There are no parameters; the description adds no parameter details (none needed) beyond the schema. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.
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 tool retrieves all Argentine dollar exchange rates, listing specific types (blue, oficial, etc.) and specifying it returns buy/sell prices. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_dollar (likely single rate) or get_all_currencies (broader).
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 for comprehensive dollar rate retrieval. With zero parameters, usage is straightforward, though it doesn't explicitly exclude alternative tools or contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get exchange rate for a specific foreign currency vs ARS.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| currency | Yes | Currency code: EUR, BRL, UYU, CLP, COP, PEN, MXN, etc. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the operation without disclosing behavioral traits such as data freshness, error handling, or whether the rate is live or cached.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No extraneous information or filler.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks behavioral transparency. It does not specify return format or behavior on invalid currency codes.
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?
Schema coverage for the single parameter is 100%, and the parameter description already lists example currency codes. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 tool retrieves an exchange rate for a specific foreign currency against ARS. It distinguishes from siblings like get_dollar (for US dollar) and get_all_currencies (list all).
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 the tool is for foreign currencies vs ARS, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like get_dollar for dollar rates or convert for conversions. Context from sibling names helps, but the description lacks direct guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get a specific dollar exchange rate. Types: blue, oficial, bolsa, contadoconliqui, cripto, mayorista, tarjeta.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | Dollar type: blue, oficial, bolsa, contadoconliqui, cripto, mayorista, tarjeta |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Get', implying a read operation. It does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or data freshness. For a simple read, the description is minimal.
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?
The description is two sentences and to the point, listing the types efficiently. No unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured.
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?
With no output schema, the description does not specify the format of the returned exchange rate (e.g., buy/sell, numeric value). For a simple tool, this is adequate but not fully complete.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the only parameter 'type'. The description repeats the same list of types, adding no extra semantic value 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 tool's function: getting a specific dollar exchange rate, and lists all valid types. This differentiates it from siblings like get_all_dollars which retrieves all rates.
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 use for retrieving a single dollar type, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like get_all_dollars or get_currency. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Calculate the spread (difference) between two dollar types. E.g. blue vs oficial.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type_a | Yes | First dollar type (e.g. oficial) | |
| type_b | Yes | Second dollar type (e.g. blue) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the mathematical operation but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, error conditions, or side effects. Minimal transparency beyond the core function.
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?
The description is a single sentence plus example, with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the purpose and very concise.
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 two-parameter tool, the description conveys the core functionality. However, with no output schema, it lacks details on the return format or value type, leaving some ambiguity about what the agent can expect.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% with explicit parameter descriptions. The description adds an example clarifying the order but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies since schema already covers parameters.
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 action ('calculate the spread') and the resource ('between two dollar types') with an illustrative example. It distinguishes from sibling tools like convert or get_dollar by focusing specifically on spread calculation.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., convert, get_dollar). The example hints at a use case, but there is no 'when not to use' or mention of alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.0.1convertget_all_currenciesget_all_dollarsget_currencyget_dollarget_spreadEach tool has a distinct purpose: conversion, listing all currencies, listing all dollars, single currency, single dollar, and spread calculation. No overlap or ambiguity.
Most tools follow a 'get_*' pattern for queries, while 'convert' uses a different verb but is still a clear action. The naming is mostly consistent with a minor deviation.
6 tools is well-scoped for a currency exchange rate server, covering all essential operations without being excessive or insufficient.
Covers core functionality: listing and fetching rates, conversion, and spread. Minor gap: no historical data or cross-currency conversion beyond ARS, but acceptable for basic use.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Real-time Argentine open data: dollar rates, BCRA, INDEC, AFIP, INFOLEG, SEPA prices. 24+ tools.
Live Iran exchange rates, gold, crypto, and Toman market data for AI agents.
Live & historical FX rates and currency conversion for AI agents. No API keys.
Live & historical FX rates and currency conversion for AI agents. No API keys.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/dan1d/dolar-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
