Counterparty Due Diligence

counterparty_due_diligence

Screen a new counterparty (person or company) in one call before onboarding, contracting or paying it. Checks sanctions (OFAC, EU, UK; UN via EU/UK), the US Consolidated Screening List, PEP (Wikidata) and registries (GLEIF, Norway). Returns no_match, possible_match, confirmed_match or unable_to_determine with confidence, sources, coverage_limitations and a screening_signal (not a compliance approval). Use for a first-pass screen before human review. $0.10 per call, USDC on Base (x402).

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "counterparty_due_diligence"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`dob`	No	Date of birth (persons)
`lei`	No	LEI
`name`	Yes	Person or company name
`type`	No	Default any
`country`	No	ISO2 country
`payment_signature`	No	x402 v2 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header value. Omit to receive payment requirements.
`registration_number`	No	Registry number

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it names the data sources checked (OFAC/EU/UK sanctions, US CSL, PEP, GLEIF/Norway registries), the possible return statuses, the disclaimer that the signal is 'not a compliance approval', and the payment model ($0.10/call, USDC on Base via x402). This covers auth/payment, cost, source scope and output semantics in one place.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four front-loaded sentences: purpose, sources, outputs/disclaimer, then usage and cost. No filler, and the highest-value routing information (what to use it for) leads.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates return statuses and fields (confidence, sources, coverage_limitations, screening_signal) and the payment flow, so an agent has enough to call and interpret it. Nothing material for a 7-param screening tool is missing.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds only implicit context ('person or company' for type), not syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Screen a new counterparty (person or company) in one call') plus the triggering lifecycle moment ('before onboarding, contracting or paying it'). Even with no siblings, an agent can tell exactly what this does.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit when-to-use: pre-onboarding, contracting or payment, and framed as a 'first-pass screen before human review.' There are no sibling tools to exclude, so naming alternatives isn't required, and the boundaries are clear from the stated stages.

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

All Counterparty Due Diligence 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.

Resources

Need Help?