CMD+RVL Receipts

Verify a deal-grain (pool) field

verify_deal_field

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify one pool-level field of a deal: the ABS-EE loan-tape rollup against the 10-D trustee's reported fact. These are COLLATERAL (loan-pool) balances and flows, NOT bond or certificate balances, and SCHEDULED and ACTUAL are different fields. No loan_id. Always the CURRENT period. Pass claimed_value; no claim or an unknown deal or field: UNVERIFIED.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`deal`	Yes	Deal name or alias, e.g. 'WFCM 2020-C58'.
`field`	Yes	The deal-grain (pool) field to verify. One of (full definitions: coverage, or the receipt's field_definition): • beginning_scheduled_collateral_balance — pool SCHEDULED collateral balance at period start (not bond balance) • ending_scheduled_collateral_balance — pool SCHEDULED collateral balance at period end (not bond balance) • ending_actual_collateral_balance — pool ACTUAL (as-paid) collateral balance at period end • total_principal_collected — pool principal collected: scheduled plus unscheduled
`claimed_value`	No	Claim to receipt. Required: no claim = refusal, no value.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`as_of`	Yes
`claim`	Yes	Adjudication: claimed_value, tolerance_*, within_tolerance, rationale.
`message`	Yes
`receipt`	Yes	sf-receipt 0.3; schema https://cmdrvl.com/schemas/sf-receipt/v0/schema.json; context https://cmdrvl.com/contexts/obs-receipt/v0/context.json
`claim_verdict`	Yes	Caller-claim verdict; DENY only here.
`resolved_deal`	Yes	Deal resolution: matched, id, cik, candidates.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed24 schema fields changedNov 2, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / field / description

Previous value: -"The deal-grain (pool) field to verify. One of:\n• beginning_scheduled_collateral_balance — Deal-level (pool) beginning SCHEDULED collateral balance for the period: the sum across every loan of its scheduled loan balance at the start of the period. A COLLATERAL (loan-pool) balance — NOT the outstanding bond/certificate balance. Reconciled as the ABS-EE loan-tape rollup (SUM of loan beginning scheduled balances) vs the 10-D trustee's directly-reported deal fact.\n• ending_scheduled_collateral_balance — Deal-level (pool) ending SCHEDULED collateral balance for the period: the sum across every loan of its ending scheduled (contractually amortized) balance. The SCHEDULED basis — distinct from the ACTUAL balance — and a COLLATERAL (loan-pool) balance, NOT the outstanding bond/certificate balance. ABS-EE rollup vs the 10-D directly-reported deal fact.\n• ending_actual_collateral_balance — Deal-level (pool) ending ACTUAL collateral balance for the period: the sum across every loan of its ending actual (as-paid, reflecting prepayments/shortfalls) balance. The ACTUAL basis — distinct from the SCHEDULED balance — and a COLLATERAL (loan-pool) balance, NOT the outstanding bond/certificate balance. ABS-EE rollup vs the 10-D directly-reported deal fact.\n• total_principal_collected — Deal-level (pool) total principal collected for the period: scheduled amortization PLUS unscheduled principal (curtailments, prepayments, payoffs), summed across the pool. Reconciled as the ABS-EE rollup (SUM scheduled + SUM unscheduled) against the 10-D 'Scheduled Principal Collections' + 'Unscheduled Principal Collections' facts (br-m04: the 10-D scheduled column commingles both, so only the composite total reconciles 1:1). A collateral cash-flow, NOT a bond principal distribution."New value: +"The deal-grain (pool) field to verify. One of (full definitions: coverage, or the receipt's field_definition):\n• beginning_scheduled_collateral_balance — pool SCHEDULED collateral balance at period start (not bond balance)\n• ending_scheduled_collateral_balance — pool SCHEDULED collateral balance at period end (not bond balance)\n• ending_actual_collateral_balance — pool ACTUAL (as-paid) collateral balance at period end\n• total_principal_collected — pool principal collected: scheduled plus unscheduled"

changedOutput schema / properties / claim / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -falseNew value: +true
```

changedOutput schema / properties / claim / description

Previous value: -"Claim-adjudication detail."New value: +"Adjudication: claimed_value, tolerance_*, within_tolerance, rationale."

removedOutput schema / properties / claim / properties / abs_diff

Removed value: -{
-  "type": [
-    "number",
-    "null"
-  ]
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / claim / properties / basis

Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "$ref": "#/properties/claim/properties/claimed_value/anyOf/0"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ]
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / claim / properties / claimed_basis
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": [
-    "string",
-    "null"
-  ]
-}
```
removedOutput schema / properties / claim / properties / claimed_unit
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": [
-    "string",
-    "null"
-  ]
-}
```

removedOutput schema / properties / claim / properties / claimed_value

Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "type": [
-        "number",
-        "string"
-      ]
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ]
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / claim / properties / claimed_value_date
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": [
-    "string",
-    "null"
-  ]
-}
```
removedOutput schema / properties / claim / properties / rationale
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```
removedOutput schema / properties / claim / properties / rel_bps_diff
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": [
-    "number",
-    "null"
-  ]
-}
```
removedOutput schema / properties / claim / properties / tolerance_kind
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": [
-    "string",
-    "null"
-  ]
-}
```
removedOutput schema / properties / claim / properties / tolerance_used
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": [
-    "number",
-    "null"
-  ]
-}
```
removedOutput schema / properties / claim / properties / within_tolerance
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": [
-    "boolean",
-    "null"
-  ]
-}
```

removedOutput schema / properties / claim / required

Removed value: -[
-  "claimed_value",
-  "tolerance_kind",
-  "tolerance_used",
-  "abs_diff",
-  "rel_bps_diff",
-  "within_tolerance",
-  "basis",
-  "rationale"
-]

changedOutput schema / properties / resolved_deal / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -falseNew value: +true
```

addedOutput schema / properties / resolved_deal / description

Added value: +"Deal resolution: matched, id, cik, candidates."

removedOutput schema / properties / resolved_deal / properties / candidates

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Suggested deal ids when unmatched/ambiguous.",
-  "items": {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  "type": "array"
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / resolved_deal / properties / cik

Removed value: -{
-  "type": [
-    "string",
-    "null"
-  ]
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / resolved_deal / properties / id

Removed value: -{
-  "type": [
-    "string",
-    "null"
-  ]
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / resolved_deal / properties / matched
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
```
removedOutput schema / properties / resolved_deal / properties / name
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": [
-    "string",
-    "null"
-  ]
-}
```
removedOutput schema / properties / resolved_deal / properties / query
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```

removedOutput schema / properties / resolved_deal / required

Removed value: -[
-  "query",
-  "matched",
-  "id",
-  "name",
-  "cik",
-  "candidates"
-]

First observedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it always reads the CURRENT period only, and it discloses the failure mode (no claim, unknown deal, or unknown field yields UNVERIFIED). It stops short of describing the pass/fail semantics or any comparison tolerance.

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?

Four dense sentences, each carrying distinct information: grain, source comparison, exclusions, and failure mode. The all-caps emphasis is functional but the grain/exclusion points overlap slightly ('pool-level' and 'No loan_id').

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers input semantics, grain constraints, and the UNVERIFIED outcome. It leaves the actual match/mismatch result semantics and any tolerance logic to the output schema, which is acceptable but slightly under-explained.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so a 3 is the baseline. The description exceeds it by clarifying that claimed_value must be passed even though it is absent from the schema's required list ('no claim = refusal, no value'), and by reinforcing that no loan_id exists at this grain.

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+resource with explicit grain: 'Verify one pool-level field of a deal' and names the source pair (ABS-EE loan-tape rollup vs 10-D trustee fact). It actively distinguishes itself from adjacent concepts by ruling out bond/certificate balances and clarifying SCHEDULED vs ACTUAL are distinct fields.

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?

'No loan_id' and 'COLLATERAL (loan-pool) balances ... NOT bond or certificate balances' route the agent away from loan-grain and bond-grain siblings without naming them explicitly. Clear context on when this applies (pool grain, current period only), but no explicit sibling callout such as verify_loan_field or verify_ending_balance.

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

All CMD+RVL Receipts tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.