RunOnProof

authorize_uk_business_payment

Read-onlyIdempotent

Paid x402 UK tool for gb.business.payment.authorize.v1 (LIMITED). Claims are limited to the named official sources.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`payee`	Yes
`amount`	Yes	Positive decimal payment amount in the declared currency; not the x402 fee.
`invoice`	Yes
`currency`	Yes	ISO 4217 currency code for the business payment instruction.
`supplier`	Yes
`vendor_change`	No
`company_number`	Yes	Companies House company number, including any two-letter prefix when applicable.
`idempotency_key`	Yes	Caller-generated key. Send the identical value in the Idempotency-Key header.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`policy`	Yes
`result`	Yes	Offer-specific facts and machine-action inputs; interpret with decision, coverage and limitations.
`payment`	Yes
`coverage`	Yes	Country, population and explicit coverage limitations.
`decision`	Yes
`evidence`	Yes	Source-scoped evidence references; absence is never a clean finding.
`replayed`	No
`conditions`	Yes
`request_id`	Yes
`delivery_id`	No
`limitations`	Yes
`valid_as_of`	Yes
`valid_until`	Yes
`execution_id`	No
`reason_codes`	Yes
`authorization`	Yes
`source_health`	Yes
`machine_action`	Yes
`schema_version`	Yes
`economic_activity`	Yes
`product_or_solution`	Yes
`required_information`	Yes

TDQS

D1.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds only the cryptic statement that 'claims are limited to the named official sources' without explaining what claims are or what the tool does, offering little behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is short but cryptic. The phrase 'Paid x402 UK tool for gb.business.payment.authorize.v1 (LIMITED)' reads as an identifier, not an explanation. 'Claims are limited to the named official sources' is ambiguous and does not contribute meaningful understanding, making this under-specification rather than conciseness.

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

Completeness1/5

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

With a heavily nested 8-parameter schema and an output schema, the description is far too thin to be actionable. It does not explain the tool's purpose, prerequisites, or what constitutes a successful authorization, making it incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema coverage is 50%, but the description provides zero parameter information. It does not explain the meaning or relationship of required fields such as company_number, supplier, invoice, payee, amount, currency, or idempotency_key, leaving the agent without additional semantic context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the API version 'gb.business.payment.authorize.v1' and calls it a 'Paid x402 UK tool', but never states that it authorizes a UK business payment. The verb is only implied by the tool name, and it does not distinguish itself from similar siblings like authorize_payment or run_uk_payment_authorization.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The second sentence about claims being limited to named official sources is a constraint, not usage direction, and no sibling tools or alternative conditions are mentioned.

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

All RunOnProof tools Inspect

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

C2.4/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools appear to address the same action with only country or payment-model differences, such as company_check/run_uk_company_check, approve_supplier/approve_uk_supplier, authorize_payment/run_uk_payment_authorization, and screen_restricted_party/screen_restricted_business_party. Even with descriptions, an agent will struggle to pick the intended tool reliably.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming mixes bare global verbs (company_check, approve_supplier, authorize_payment) with UK-prefixed variants (run_uk_company_check, approve_uk_supplier, authorize_uk_business_payment), plus free-form names like counterfactual, preflight, quote, and capabilities. There is no single consistent verb_noun or country-modifier convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

46 tools is far beyond the typical well-scoped MCP surface, and the set carries heavy duplication through global/UK/free/paid variants. While the domain may justify multiple country-specific operations, the tool count itself will overwhelm agents and make selection harder.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the main compliance lifecycle well: discovery (capabilities, preflight, quote, resolve_agent_intent), verification, supplier approval, payment authorization, invoice matching, passport issuance/refresh, and verification receipts. Minor gaps exist around explicit cancellation/revocation or list/search operations, but core workflows have no major dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?