Skip to main content
Glama

Lovie Company Formation

by co.lovie

Extract Wire Payment Proof

cap_table_extract_wire_payment_proof

Runs vision OCR on an already-uploaded wire payment proof (wire confirmation, bank statement, or transfer receipt — NOT an invoice) for a security and returns the extracted fields plus a verification verdict (verified | needs_review | mismatch). Nothing is persisted. Flow: call GetOcrUploadURL with kind=WIRE_PROOF, PUT the file bytes to the returned upload_url, then call this with the returned source_s3_uri. Only a 'verified' verdict can back a wire in RecordCapTableWire.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agentCodeNo
companyIdYesUUID value wrapper.
securityIdYesUUID value wrapper.
sourceS3UriNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
proofNo
warningsNo
sourceS3UriNo
verificationNo
ocrConfidenceNo

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds important behavioral details beyond annotations: nothing is persisted, requires prior upload, verdict values, and constraint for RecordCapTableWire. Annotations are minimal, so description carries the burden well and does not contradict them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three concise sentences: purpose, flow, constraint. Every sentence adds value with zero filler.

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?

Covers return verdict, flow, persistence, and constraint. Output schema fills in field details. Missing explanation of optional agentCode, but overall complete for a complex tool.

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 50%; description explains sourceS3Uri origin and securityId context via 'for a security', but agentCode remains unexplained. Adds some meaning beyond schema but not full compensation for all parameters.

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?

The description states a specific verb (runs vision OCR) and resource (wire payment proof), and explicitly differentiates from invoices and ties to RecordCapTableWire. It clearly distinguishes from other cap_table tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides explicit flow (GetOcrUploadURL → PUT → call with source_s3_uri) and context (only 'verified' can back a wire). Does not name alternative tools but gives clear when-to-use and exclusion (NOT an invoice).

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

All Lovie Company Formation toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

Multiple tool pairs are nearly identical (formation_extract_cap_table / formation_extract_cap_table_ocr; formation_start_formation / formation_create_formation), and several tools lack descriptions, making selection ambiguous. The scale of 202 tools with overlapping summaries (e.g., multiple cap-table summary tools) compounds the confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

Dominant snake_case `module_verb_noun` pattern, but with notable deviations: `captable_send_safe_for_signature` uses an inconsistent abbreviation, `check_company_name_availability` lacks a module prefix, and `get_list_` vs `list_` prefixes are mixed. Readable but not fully consistent.

Tool Count1/5

202 tools is far beyond any reasonable surface for a single server, even a broad platform. The sheer number overwhelms and makes tool discovery impractical; many tools are peripheral (ads metrics) to the core formation purpose.

Completeness4/5

The domain appears well covered: formation flows, cap-table lifecycle (import, close, simulate), accounting (journal entries, periods, schedules), cards, documents, and transactions all have CRUD or lifecycle operations. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no card deletion, no counterparty creation), but they are unlikely to cause dead ends.

Resources