x402 Bazaar

bic_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Is this bank code even well-formed? — Validate a BIC/SWIFT code offline (ISO 9362): 8 or 11 characters, bank/country/location[/branch] layout, head-office vs branch, and the test-BIC flag. Every rejection names which check failed. Structure only — does not prove the bank is live. Required input: bic. Priced $0.002 per call over x402 on Base; send a prepaid x-credit-token header for unlimited calls, or get 1 free call/day per tool. No API key required.

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": {
      "bic": "<bic>"
    },
    "name": "bic_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bic`	Yes	BIC / SWIFT

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No	The result payload. Shape is service-specific; every field is documented in the tool description.
`service`	No	The service id that answered.
`checkedAt`	No	ISO-8601 timestamp of when the underlying reads were taken.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedSep 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds real beyond-schema context: validation is offline and structural only, rejections name the failing check, and the pricing/free-tier/auth model (x402 on Base, prepaid header) is disclosed.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loads the purpose with a hook question, then progressively adds format checks, scope limits, and pricing. Efficient overall, though the pricing/auth boilerplate is somewhat verbose relative to the single-parameter operation.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose, scope limits, the failing-check behavior, and operational/auth requirements. Complete enough for a one-parameter validator, leaving only minor mechanics like branch-parsing detail unstated.

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 fully documents the single 'bic' parameter. The description only restates 'Required input: bic' without adding format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the 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+resource (validate a BIC/SWIFT code) and enumerates the exact checks performed: ISO 9362 format, 8/11 characters, bank/country/location/branch layout, head-office vs branch, and test-BIC flag. This clearly distinguishes it from adjacent validators such as iban_check and bin_check.

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?

Gives clear usage context ('offline', 'structure only') and a scoping exclusion ('does not prove the bank is live'), which tells the agent what this tool can and cannot establish. It does not explicitly route to sibling validators, but the narrow scope makes the boundary readable.

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

All x402 Bazaar 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?