SITEBORNE Utility Network

Build company evidence graph

siteborne_build_company_evidence_graph

Idempotent

Build a proof-carrying graph of public company identity, SEC filings, website observations, regulatory mentions, and repository signals. Use when: the request needs entity-level evidence synthesized across sources. Do not use when: one URL is the subject (use siteborne_retrieve_verified_web_context), one document is the subject (use siteborne_extract_document_evidence_json), or an existing agent output needs evaluation (use siteborne_verify_agent_output). Parameters: authoritative identifiers (cik, lei, isin, cusip, figi) resolve entities more reliably than company_name, ticker or domain alone, and combining them reduces ambiguity; requested_field_groups narrows provider work; maximum_authorized_price only constrains payment and never widens scope. Behavior: open-world: a paid request queries public data providers over the network and persists governed payment, audit, job and Workflow state; an unpaid request returns payment_required; a repeated identical request with the same payment is replay-protected and is not charged twice. This service is currently production-disabled and rejects execution. Economics: exact price of $0.0312 USD per request; the payment challenge requires that amount and the charge settles at exactly that amount. Failure: input that fails schema validation is rejected before any payment challenge; provider or service unavailability returns a structured MCP error. Returns: a company evidence graph with provenance, completeness, verification, and PCC context—not a raw webpage or document extraction.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`domain`	No	Primary website hostname only, without a URL path; links first-party web evidence to the company identity.
`ticker`	No	One-to-five uppercase exchange ticker symbols; narrows public-company resolution but is not globally unique without other signals.
`buyer_urls`	No	Up to twenty public supplemental evidence URLs supplied by the buyer; these are additional sources, not replacements for entity resolution.
`identifiers`	No	Known authoritative entity identifiers; supplying precise identifiers reduces ambiguous name, ticker, or domain matching.
`company_name`	No	Legal or commonly used company name; supplies an entity-resolution signal when authoritative identifiers are unavailable.
`freshness_seconds`	No	Maximum acceptable source age in seconds, from 0 through 2,592,000; lower values demand fresher evidence.
`jurisdiction_hints`	No	Up to five two-letter uppercase jurisdiction codes used to focus regulatory context; hints do not assert incorporation.
`minimum_completeness`	No	Required completeness ratio from 0 through 1; results below this threshold fail the requested acceptance condition.
`requested_field_groups`	No	Unique evidence categories to collect; omitted values use the schema default, while a smaller list limits provider work and result scope.
`maximum_authorized_price`	No	Buyer’s decimal-safe maximum authorized price; constrains the payment requirement and never expands provider scope.
`minimum_verification_score`	No	Required PCC verification ratio from 0 through 1; raising it makes result acceptance stricter.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes	Output schema for company_evidence_graph.v1 service. Must be a valid PCC 1.0.0 document with required net.siteborne.company-evidence.v1 extension.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedSep 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes significantly beyond the annotations. It explains the open-world behavior (paid vs unpaid requests), replay protection, exact pricing, production-disabled status, and failure modes. These are critical operational details that the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) do not cover, and they are all disclosed clearly without contradiction.

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 description is dense but well-structured with clear sections (when to use, parameters, behavior, economics, failure, returns). Every sentence adds value, covering usage, constraints, and operational details without fluff. Information is front-loaded with purpose and usage, and the structure aids readability despite the length.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, nested objects, payment requirements, multiple sources) and the fact that annotations and schema provide rich context, the description covers all necessary aspects: usage scenarios, parameter guidance, behavior, pricing, failure modes, and return type. The output schema handles return details, and the description mentions returns enough to set expectations. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide and call correctly.

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 the schema already documents all 11 parameters thoroughly. The description adds guidance on identifier reliability and the role of maximum_authorized_price, but most parameter meaning is already in the schema. The description provides some extra value by explaining how identifiers interact and clarifying that maximum_authorized_price only constrains payment, which justifies a baseline 3.

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 clearly states it builds a proof-carrying graph of company identity and evidence from multiple sources, using a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('company evidence graph'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the alternatives and their conditions, so an agent can select it correctly.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use ('entity-level evidence synthesized across sources') and when-not-to-use conditions, naming each alternative tool (e.g., one URL -> siteborne_retrieve_verified_web_context). It also gives guidance on parameter selection (prefer identifiers over name/ticker/domain) and clarifies scope constraints (maximum_authorized_price never widens scope).

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

All SITEBORNE Utility Network 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?