Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Privi Quantum

by io.github.canoydario847-cloud
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

GENIUS Act stablecoin check

genius_stablecoin_check
Read-onlyIdempotent

Before accepting, paying with or listing a stablecoin: who issues it, what GENIUS Act license status has been recorded (with the regulator's source), and whether its latest monthly reserve report is sealed, current, examined, CEO/CFO-certified, 1:1 and matched to on-chain supply. Returns pass / pass_reserves_license_pending / caution / reject / unknown. The DASP rule (no non-permitted stablecoins for U.S. persons) starts 2028-07-18. Paid per call via x402 when payments are on (see quantum_pricing). Evidence, not a legal determination.

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": {
      "chain": "<chain>",
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "genius_stablecoin_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainYesbase | ethereum | arbitrum | optimism | polygon
addressYesThe stablecoin's token contract address (0x...)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description focuses on what they cannot convey: the call is billed per-invocation via x402 when payments are enabled (pointing to quantum_pricing), the possible return verdicts, the 2028-07-18 DASP rule deadline, and the scope disclaimer 'Evidence, not a legal determination.' These are exactly the behavioral and compliance-boundary facts an agent needs before deciding to call and how to interpret the result.

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 trigger condition is front-loaded and the middle sentence packs the full checklist efficiently. The parenthetical '(with the regulator's source)' and the DASP start-date sentence are dense but relevant; slight trimming would improve it, yet no sentence is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the five verdict values and the evidence categories behind them, plus the billing model. What remains thin is the shape of the returned evidence payload (field names, source citations) beyond the verdict label, which an agent would have to discover at call time.

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% — the schema itself documents 'chain' (with the five allowed values) and 'address' (the token contract address). The prose adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies; the schema is doing all the parameter work.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (check a stablecoin against GENIUS Act criteria) and enumerates exactly what is examined: issuer, recorded license status with regulator source, and monthly reserve report attributes (sealed, current, examined, CEO/CFO-certified, 1:1, matched to on-chain supply). It also names the verdict taxonomy, so an agent can tell it apart from the neighboring inspector/pqc/quantum tools at a glance.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger: 'Before accepting, paying with or listing a stablecoin.' That gives clear when-to-use context. However, it does not state when *not* to use it (e.g., for non-stablecoin tokens or non-U.S. flows) and does not name an alternative sibling tool for those cases.

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

All Privi Quantum 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