code402

Counterparty Risk Indicators

pre_disbursement_guard

Read-onlyIdempotent

Evaluate supplied identifiers, domain-age evidence and mismatch signals. Requires a preceding receipt hash. An advisory result is not verified identity, fraud clearance or authorization to release funds.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`lei`	No	ISO 17442 Legal Entity Identifier (optional).
`vat_number`	No	EU VAT number (optional).
`vendor_domain`	No	Vendor website domain or invoicing email address (optional).
`company_number`	No	Official corporate registration number, e.g. UK Companies House 8 digits/chars (optional).
`recipient_iban`	No	Recipient bank IBAN (optional).
`declared_country`	No	2-letter ISO country code where vendor claims to be registered (optional, e.g. 'GB', 'US', 'DE').
`physical_address`	No	Vendor physical office address (optional).
`prev_receipt_hash`	No	Preceding verification receipt hash (may also be passed via X-PREV-RECEIPT-HASH header).
`invoice_amount_usd`	No	Disbursement transaction amount in USD (optional).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tool`	No
`scope`	No
`checks`	No
`summary`	No
`decision`	Yes
`risk_level`	Yes
`risk_score`	Yes
`flags_triggered`	No
`recommendations`	No
`clear_to_disburse`	Yes
`inspected_counterparty`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 17, 2026
RemovedOct 15, 2026

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 15, 2026

changedInput schema / examples

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "company_number": "01234567",
-    "declared_country": "GB",
-    "invoice_amount_usd": 4500,
-    "recipient_iban": "GB82WEST12345698765432",
-    "vendor_domain": "billing@acme-consulting.co.uk"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "company_number": "01234567",
+    "declared_country": "GB",
+    "invoice_amount_usd": 4500,
+    "prev_receipt_hash": "0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000",
+    "recipient_iban": "GB82WEST12345698765432",
+    "vendor_domain": "billing@acme-consulting.co.uk"
+  }
+]

addedInput schema / properties / prev_receipt_hash

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Preceding verification receipt hash (may also be passed via X-PREV-RECEIPT-HASH header).",
+  "type": "string"
+}

AddedSep 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: the receipt-hash prerequisite and an explicit disclaimer that results are advisory and not fraud clearance or release authorization. It omits failure behavior (e.g., what happens when the hash is absent) but the result-interpretation caveat is genuinely valuable.

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?

Three tight sentences with distinct jobs — purpose, prerequisite, result caveat — and the purpose statement is front-loaded. No filler, though the disclaimer sentence is dense enough that it could be split for scannability.

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, the description need not explain return values, and it correctly focuses on the prerequisite and the advisory nature of results. Given nine all-optional parameters and no enums, an agent has enough to call it, though guidance on minimum useful inputs is absent.

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 description coverage is 100% across all nine optional parameters, so the schema carries the semantic load and the baseline is 3. The description only gestures at inputs generally ('supplied identifiers, domain-age evidence') and notably references domain-age evidence that is not an explicit parameter, adding little param-level detail.

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?

The description gives a specific composite action — evaluating supplied identifiers, domain-age evidence and mismatch signals — which an agent can distinguish from single-check siblings like lei_check or iban_check. It never names those siblings or states the composite scope explicitly, so differentiation relies on inference.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The prerequisite 'Requires a preceding receipt hash' gives a clear pre-condition for invoking this tool, implying an ordering after receipt_verify. However, it offers no guidance on when to prefer this guard over the narrower identifier checks with which it overlaps.

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

All code402 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.