Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

AgentKYB

by io.github.Andy229651
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

vendor_preflight

Verify vendor identity before paying: KYB, supplier risk and counterparty checks for AI agents. Returns allow/review/block with legal-entity evidence, potential sanctions signals, RDAP domain evidence and company-domain consistency. Payment safety decision support via x402; not legal or transaction approval.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesVendor or counterparty name
domainNoOptional vendor domain
countryNoOptional ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code
registration_numberNoRequired for PL: 10-digit KRS, SK: 8-digit IČO, US: SEC CIK (1–10 digits). Optional company number for IE/LV. See country coverage for limited scopes.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / name / maxLength
      Added value: +200
    • addedInput schema / properties / registration_number
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Required for PL: 10-digit KRS, SK: 8-digit IČO, US: SEC CIK (1–10 digits). Optional company number for IE/LV. See country coverage for limited scopes.",
+  "maxLength": 11,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / country / description
      Previous value: -"Optional ISO country code"New value: +"Optional ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code"
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the output shape (allow/review/block), the evidence classes returned (legal-entity, sanctions signals, RDAP domain, domain consistency), and an explicit limitation ('not legal or transaction approval'). It omits auth requirements, latency, and whether the call is purely read-only, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 the action and purpose front-loaded, followed by return values and then scope limits. No filler; each clause carries information, though the final disclaimer clause is slightly terse for its importance.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully specifies the decision verdicts and evidence returned, and it bounds liability scope. Combined with 100% schema coverage on inputs, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only operational details like auth or the x402 payment mechanics are left implicit.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, including the country-specific registration_number rules. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 and resource ('Verify vendor identity') and enumerates the checks performed (KYB, supplier risk, counterparty checks), which lets an agent separate it from the sibling payment_preflight by subject (vendor vs. payment). It never names the sibling 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?

'Verify vendor identity before paying' implies the triggering context, and 'not legal or transaction approval' bounds the scope. However, it never states when to prefer this over payment_preflight or what happens if the two are combined, leaving routing to inference.

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

All AgentKYB toolsInspect
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