Stablecoin Gateways

Business Days and Holidays

business_days

Read-onlyIdempotent

Business days and public holidays: check if a date is a business day, add or subtract N business days, count business days between dates, or list holidays, for 250 countries, 630 subdivisions (e.g. US-NY, GB-ENG) and 31 stock exchanges, 2025-2030. Use for payment due dates, T+N settlement, delivery estimates and SLAs. Data: python-holidays (MIT). Signed receipt. Price: $0.001 per call via x402 (USDC on Base or XRP on XRPL). The response includes a provenance block (sg-provenance/1): each fact carries its source, source URL, retrieval time and limits; evidence only, no score, rating or verdict. Example arguments: {"calendar":"US-NY","op":"add","date":"2026-12-23","days":"3"}.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "business_days"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`op`	No	Operation; default check
`end`	No	End date for op=between
`date`	No	YYYY-MM-DD; default today
`days`	No	Business days to add (op=add), integer, \|days\|<=1000
`year`	No	Year for op=list, 2025-2030
`calendar`	No	ISO country (US), country-subdivision (US-NY) or exchange (FIN-XNYS); default US

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No	Business-day answer for the calendar: is_business_day / result date / count / holiday list, with coverage years
`receipt`	No	Ed25519-signed, hash-chained receipt; verify free with the verify_receipt tool or POST /v1/verify-receipt. New receipts carry a signed `evidence` object: service_version, data_timestamp, validation, terms_version, terms_hash, provenance_hash.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 24, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / provenance

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The response includes a `provenance` block (sg-provenance/1): each fact carries its source, source URL, retrieval time and limits; evidence only, no score, rating or verdict."
+}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 24, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / receipt / description

Previous value: -"Ed25519-signed, hash-chained receipt; verify free with the verify_receipt tool or POST /v1/verify-receipt"New value: +"Ed25519-signed, hash-chained receipt; verify free with the verify_receipt tool or POST /v1/verify-receipt. New receipts carry a signed `evidence` object: service_version, data_timestamp, validation, terms_version, terms_hash, provenance_hash."

Changed1 schema field changedOct 22, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "Paid result: { data, receipt }. Unpaid calls return an x402 PaymentRequired object instead (isError: true).",
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "description": "Business-day answer for the calendar: is_business_day / result date / count / holiday list, with coverage years",
+      "properties": {
+        "calendar": {},
+        "coverage": {},
+        "days": {},
+        "holidays_skipped": {},
+        "op": {},
+        "result": {},
+        "source": {},
+        "start": {},
+        "weekend_days": {}
+      }
+    },
+    "receipt": {
+      "description": "Ed25519-signed, hash-chained receipt; verify free with the verify_receipt tool or POST /v1/verify-receipt"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/openWorld) by disclosing the paid x402 pricing model ($0.001 per call, USDC on Base or XRP on XRPL), signed receipt behavior, data provenance (python-holidays, MIT), and the structure of the `provenance` block in the response. These are exactly the operational facts an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loads capabilities and coverage, then use cases, then commercial/provenance details, with an example at the end — a sensible order. It is dense and packs pricing, licensure and provenance into one paragraph, but each clause carries information an agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

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 needn't be explained, and the description still calls out the provenance block; parameters are fully schema-described; coverage boundaries and cost model are stated. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds a worked example of argument values ({calendar: US-NY, op: add, date, days}) that shows how parameters combine per operation. It doesn't explicitly restate enum or format rules, which the schema already carries.

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 specific operations (check, add/subtract, count between, list holidays) on a specific resource, plus exact coverage (250 countries, 630 subdivisions, 31 exchanges, 2025-2030). No sibling tool overlaps this domain, and an agent can tell immediately what this returns.

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?

Gives concrete application contexts: payment due dates, T+N settlement, delivery estimates and SLAs. It does not state when to avoid this tool or name an alternative, but with no overlapping sibling the practical guidance is complete enough.

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

All Stablecoin Gateways 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.

Resources

Need Help?