code402-verify-mcp

lei_check

Paid ($0.05). Validate a Legal Entity Identifier (LEI, ISO 17442). Checks 20-char alphanumeric format and Mod 97-10 check character. Verified via Rust WASM engine.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "lei": "<lei>"
    },
    "name": "lei_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lei`	Yes	20-character LEI (e.g. 5493001KJTIIGC8Y1R12)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 24, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure; it adds cost, the Mod 97-10 check, and the Rust WASM engine. It does not state the return shape (boolean vs detailed result) or explicitly confirm read-only/no side effects, leaving gaps for a validation tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with cost and purpose, with no redundant wording. The engine note is brief and potentially useful as a trust signal.

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

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter validator, the description covers purpose, cost, and algorithm. It omits return-value expectations and usage alternatives, which are the main remaining gaps given no output schema and no annotations.

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 100% and the single parameter is already documented with an example. The description adds validation semantics (20-char alphanumeric, Mod 97-10) but little parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb, 'Validate', and resource, 'Legal Entity Identifier (LEI, ISO 17442)', and names the checks performed. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling validators such as iban_check or luhn_check, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative tool is named. The only usage-adjacent information is the $0.05 cost, which does not tell an agent when this validator is appropriate versus siblings.

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

All code402-verify-mcp 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?