Skip to main content
Glama

agentdata-nl

by io.github.DarthSander

attest_settlement

For a seller receiving an agent payment: verify the settlement on-chain (tx confirmed, correct recipient and amount), report the payer wallet's on-chain history, screen the provided counterparty name against the EU and UN sanctions lists, and return an Ed25519-signed attestation you keep as your audit record (verifiable offline via /.well-known/attest-keys.json). Facts and proof, never a guarantee, custody or compliance verdict. Name appears only as SHA-256.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
payerNo
paymentYes
purposeNooptional non-identifying label
expectedYes
counterparty_nameNoname you know for the payer; screened against EU/UN sanctions, stored only as SHA-256

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: it returns a signed attestation, stores counterparty name as SHA-256, and disclaims guarantees or compliance verdicts. However, it does not clarify whether it writes any data or what the history report entails.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and adds necessary detail. It could be slightly more concise, but it earns its length.

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?

Given complexity (5 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description explains the overall flow but omits the return structure beyond 'attestation'. The on-chain history and sanctions results are not explicitly linked to the output, leaving some uncertainty.

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 40%, but the description adds significant context: 'counterparty_name' is screened and hashed, 'expected.amount' is atomic USDC with 6 decimals, and 'payment.tx_hash' comes from a PAYMENT-RESPONSE. This compensates well for the schema's brevity.

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 clearly states it verifies settlement on-chain, reports wallet history, screens sanctions, and returns a signed attestation. It is specific to sellers receiving agent payments, and distinct from sibling tools that focus on individual actions.

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 description implies use when a seller receives an agent payment, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it. No alternatives are named, leaving some ambiguity.

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

All agentdata-nl toolsInspect
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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct action and domain: country-specific company checks (check_ch_company, check_fr_company, etc.), insolvency checks, crypto signals, x402 network tools, etc. Descriptions are detailed and make boundaries clear, with no two tools appearing to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow very consistent patterns: 'check_<country>_<entity>' for registers, 'crypto_*' for crypto intelligence, 'x402_*' for x402 network functions, 'screen_*' for screening, and a few free-form names like 'verify_eu_vat' and 'lookup_lei' that still fit the verb_noun style. No mixing of conventions.

Tool Count4/5

39 tools is high but justified by the broad scope: the server aggregates many country-specific checks, insolvency registers, crypto tools, x402 monitoring, and auxiliary functions (like phone number buying, LEI lookup). Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count is not excessive given the coverage. A slight reduction could be possible by merging some country checks, but overall it's reasonable.

Completeness4/5

The server covers major European company registers (CH, UK, FR, NL, NO, PL, CZ, FI), insolvency checks (NL, FR), sanctions screening, VAT validation, crypto market intelligence, and x402 network tools. It acknowledges gaps (e.g., no German check) and provides fallback tools like 'screen_eu_supplier' and 'file_agent_want'. Minor missing pieces (e.g., Italian company check) keep it from a perfect 5.

Resources