automaton

x402check__diligence

One-call company vetting for a counterparty: fuzzy OFAC SDN name screen, SEC EDGAR entity identity (CIK, name, SIC, state, recent forms) and domain age, joined into a verdict. Public data only. $0.01/call. Price: $0.01 per call in USDC on Base (eip155:8453), paid with x402 in params._meta["x402/payment"]. HTTP: GET https://api.firstmention.uk/s/x402check/diligence

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "x402check__diligence"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Company name to screen
`domain`	No	Company domain for RDAP age check

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedNov 3, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / company

Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}

addedInput schema / properties / domain / description
```
Added value: +"Company domain for RDAP age check"
```

addedInput schema / properties / name

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Company name to screen",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "name"
+]
```

AddedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that only public data is used, that the OFAC screen is fuzzy (i.e. name matching, not exact), that results are joined into a verdict, and it spells out the payment requirement (x402 in params._meta["x402/payment"], USDC on Base eip155:8453) plus the HTTP endpoint. What is missing is failure/empty-result behavior and what the verdict shape looks like.

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?

Purpose and the three data sources are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by data-source and payment constraints. There is minor redundancy in stating the cost twice ('$0.01/call' and 'Price: $0.01 per call in USDC on Base'), but otherwise every clause carries information.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it explains what is composed into the verdict, that data is public-only, and how payment works. The remaining gap is what happens on partial matches or payment failure, which matters for an agent calling a paid endpoint.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only that the domain feeds an RDAP age check, which is a small amount of meaning beyond the schema field text. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a specific verb (vetting), a specific resource (a company/counterparty), and enumerates the exact data sources composed into the result: fuzzy OFAC SDN screen, SEC EDGAR identity (CIK, name, SIC, state, recent forms), and domain age. This is much more concrete than a generic 'look up company' statement. It stops short of a 5 because it never distinguishes itself from adjacent siblings like check_sanctions__kyb, company_facts__lookup, or edgar__company.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'one-call' implies this is the consolidated alternative to making separate sanctions, EDGAR, and domain-age calls, which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative for cases where the agent only needs one of the three signals.

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

All automaton 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?