Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Isin

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Validate Cusip

validate_cusip
Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate a CUSIP (9-char US/Canada securities identifier, e.g. "037833100"). Checks structure + the check digit.

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "cusip": "037833100"
    },
    "name": "validate_cusip"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cusipYesA 9-character CUSIP, e.g. "037833100".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "cusip": "037833100"
+  },
+  {
+    "cusip": "594918104"
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds behavioral detail about checking structure and check digit. It doesn't disclose the return format or error behavior, but with annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The one-sentence description is front-loaded with the action and includes an example. It is concise and every word contributes to understanding, with no wasted text.

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?

For a simple validation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the core behavior. It doesn't explicitly state the return value but implies a validity check, which is sufficient given the low complexity and annotations.

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?

The schema covers the cusip parameter fully with 100% coverage, including length and example. The description reinforces the format but doesn't add substantial new semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses the specific verb 'Validate' with the resource 'CUSIP' and details that it checks structure and the check digit. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_isin and cusip_to_isin.

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 clearly indicates the tool's purpose for validating a CUSIP identifier. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it provides clear context but lacks exclusions.

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

All Isin 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