RunOnProof

match_uk_business_payee

Read-onlyIdempotent

Paid x402 UK tool for gb.business_payee.match.v1 (LIMITED). Claims are limited to the named official sources.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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.
`binding_evidence`	No
`payee_fingerprint`	Yes	Opaque caller-generated fingerprint; never send raw bank-account details.

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

C2.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description adds that the tool is 'paid' and limited to 'named official sources,' which are constraints beyond the annotations. However, it does not explain what 'LIMITED' means or what happens when sources are unavailable. Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, so no contradiction exists.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is short (two sentences) but not front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It begins with 'Paid x402' which is a pricing detail rather than the core function. The structure is not ideal for quick understanding.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (nested object, multiple required parameters, output schema), the description is far too minimal. It fails to explain what 'matching' entails, what 'named official sources' are, or how this tool relates to the broader payment verification workflow.

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?

The description says nothing about parameters. Schema coverage is 75%, with the top-level 'binding_evidence' parameter lacking a description. The description does not compensate for this gap or clarify how parameters should be used together.

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 does not clearly state that this tool matches a UK business payee against official sources. It references 'gb.business_payee.match.v1' and says 'Claims are limited to the named official sources,' but the verb and resource are not explicit. The intended action is only inferable from the tool name.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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 any of the sibling tools (e.g., verify_uk_bank_account_ownership or match_uk_invoice_to_company). It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative scenarios.

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?