Temsor API — Turkey & EU business data

EPC QR Payload

pay_epc_qr

Builds an EPC069-12 v3.1 V2 (002) SCT payload. Does not send money; returns text only, no PNG.

European payments often start from a QR that encodes an EPC069-12 credit-transfer payload. This endpoint builds that text in version 002 (V2): BCD, UTF-8, SCT, optional BIC, name, electronic IBAN, EUR amount. Purpose and structured remittance are left empty; unstructured remittance is copied if given. Lines are LF, not CRLF. IBAN spaces are stripped and letters uppercased; mod-97 is not required here. TRY, USD and any non-EUR currency are rejected. This does not send money and does not render a QR image.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`bic`	No	Beneficiary BIC; optional in V2 (002).
`iban`	Yes	Beneficiary IBAN, with or without spaces.
`name`	Yes	Beneficiary name (SCT Name).
`currency`	No	Must be EUR if provided. Other currencies are rejected.
`amountEur`	Yes	Transfer amount in EUR (positive).
`remittance`	No	Unstructured remittance (e.g. invoice number).

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Even though annotations are absent, the description thoroughly discloses behavior: output is text only, line endings are LF, IBAN spaces stripped and uppercased, mod-97 not required, non-EUR rejected, structured remittance emptied, and unstructured remittance copied. This is far beyond a typical description and fully satisfies the annotation burden.

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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded, but 'does not send money' and 'does not render a QR image' appear twice. Minor redundancy, but each sentence otherwise conveys a necessary behavior of the EPC payload.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, what it returns, edge cases, accepted currency, line-ending format, and what is intentionally omitted. An agent has enough to call the tool correctly and interpret the result.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description still adds meaningful parameter behavior: it specifies that unstructured remittance is copied if given, structured/purpose remain empty, current currency is rejected, and IBAN normalization rules. This is valuable context beyond the schema field descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Builds') and names the exact standard and version (EPC069-12 v3.1 V2 SCT). It clearly differentiates itself by adding 'Does not send money; returns text only, no PNG,' preventing confusion with sibling tools that validate or process payments.

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 clear context (European payments encoded in QR) and exclusions (does not send money, no PNG, non-EUR currencies rejected). No sibling tool appears to be an alternative, but no explicit 'when not to use' or direct comparison is given, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All Temsor API — Turkey & EU business data tools Inspect

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

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (e.g., bic_validate vs vin_validate), but there is notable overlap: tr_validate bundles Turkish validations that are also covered individually by iban_validate and tin_validate. Also, lei_validate and lei_lookup are closely related but distinct enough. Overall, agents can usually pick the right tool, but a few pairs could confuse.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names are consistently snake_case with predominately verb_noun patterns (e.g., validate, lookup, screen, parse, build). Some nouns like mcp_index, model_archive, and series_history break the verb pattern but are still predictable. Minor deviations from the noun_verb form (tr_invoice_build, shipping_identify) don't cause confusion. Very readable and consistent overall.

Tool Count3/5

With 27 tools, the set is heavy, exceeding the typical 3–15 well-scoped range. However, the server covers a broad domain: international standards validation, Turkey-specific business data (fuel, labor, invoices, addresses), and even MCP/LLM model archives. The count is justifiable given the scope, but it stretches coherence and may overwhelm agents.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is remarkably comprehensive for the stated Turkey & EU business data purpose: validators for most ID types, VAT, IBAN, phone, VIN, sanctions; plus Turkey-specific operations like invoice build/parse, labor calculations, fuel prices, business days, and address parsing. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no general exchange-rate conversion, no credit-note-specific builder), but agents can accomplish core workflows without dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?