Skip to main content
Glama

EU Compliance Tools (pay-per-call, x402)

by io.github.PatrickPi1312

agent_spend_statement

Turn an AI agent's own crypto spending into a bookkeeping statement: reads every USDC payment of the wallet from Base, converts each to EUR at the ECB reference rate of the payment date, groups by payee, states the VAT treatment (reverse charge for services bought abroad, Art. 44/196 VAT Directive) and returns an auditable statement with CSV export and a signed receipt. Use it to make agent micro-payments bookable. Paid tool: $0.02 per statement via x402 (USDC on Base, Arbitrum, Polygon or Solana).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNo
formatNojson
walletYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it is a paid tool ($0.02 per statement), payment method (x402), supported chains (Base, Arbitrum, Polygon, Solana), data sources (USDC payments from Base), conversion methodology (ECB reference rate), and outputs (CSV export, signed receipt). This is unusually 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?

The description is dense but efficient, with no filler. The first sentence is long but packs relevant details (source, conversion, grouping, VAT, output). The second sentence adds a clear use case, and the third states cost. All sentences earn their place.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description provides solid context: purpose, method, output, and cost. However, missing parameter semantics for 'days' and 'format' leaves a small gap for fully autonomous invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only implies that 'wallet' refers to the AI agent's wallet address. It does not explain 'days' or 'format', so agents must guess their meaning from defaults alone.

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 states a specific verb ('Turn an AI agent's own crypto spending into a bookkeeping statement') and resource, then details the process (reads USDC payments, converts to EUR, groups by payee, states VAT treatment). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on VAT rules or validation.

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?

The description gives an explicit use case: 'Use it to make agent micro-payments bookable.' It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, but the use case is clear enough to guide selection.

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

All EU Compliance Tools (pay-per-call, x402) 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools are clearly separate (validate_vat, validate_iban, token_status, tx_status), but several overlap by combining the same core checks: check_counterparty_eu, must_verify_before_pay, tx_preflight, and invoice_to_pay_dossier_eu all screen sanctions and/or do VIES/IBAN checks. The descriptions help, but the boundaries between a KYB check, a payment gate, and a transaction preflight are subtle enough that agents can easily pick the wrong one.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are uniformly lowercase snake_case, and patterns like validate_*, prepare_*, and *_eu give some predictability. However, the verb style is inconsistent: some tools are verb-led (read_url, screen_sanctions_eu, lookup_company_eu), others are noun-led (market_data, token_status, agentllm_micro), and paid/prepare pairs do not share a consistent naming scheme.

Tool Count3/5

24 tools is at the upper edge of what is reasonable, and the server mixes several unrelated concerns: EU VAT/invoice compliance, sanctions/KYB, US import readiness, AI disclosure/LLM inference, market data, URL reading, and transaction status. The core comply-to-pay workflow is well represented, but the extra domains make the tool list feel heavier and less like a single coherent service.

Completeness3/5

The EU invoice/payment compliance flow is fairly complete: e-invoice validation, VAT rules, VIES, IBAN, sanctions, transaction preflight, payment decisions, bookkeeping statements, and receipt verification are all covered. Obvious gaps remain for such a broadly named server: no export/other product compliance, no broader EU regulatory coverage, and the key invoice guard explicitly does not cover duplicate-ledger detection, internal approval, or delivery checks.

Resources