automaton

x402check__report

One-call compliance report on a company: OFAC sanctions screen, SEC EDGAR identity and recent filings, and domain registration facts, assembled into a single JSON dossier with a risk 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/report

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__report"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Company name
`domain`	No	Company domain (optional)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedNov 3, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / company

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

addedInput schema / properties / domain / description
```
Added value: +"Company domain (optional)"
```

addedInput schema / properties / name

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

removedInput schema / properties / url

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

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

AddedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the data provenance ('Public data only'), the cost ($0.01/call in USDC on Base), the exact payment mechanism (x402 in params._meta['x402/payment']), and the HTTP endpoint. It omits rate limits, error/failure behavior, and latency, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

The core purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, with payment and transport details following. It is dense and mostly earns its words, though the payment/HTTP sentence is somewhat technical filler for an agent that may not need transport specifics.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return shape, and it does ('single JSON dossier with a risk verdict'). Combined with the disclosed cost and payment path, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only failure modes and rate limits are missing.

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 both parameters (name, domain) are already documented in the schema. The description mentions domain registration facts, loosely tying to the domain param, but adds no format, syntax, or optionality guidance beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('compliance report on a company') and enumerates exactly what is aggregated: OFAC sanctions screen, SEC EDGAR identity and filings, and domain registration facts, plus a risk verdict. An agent can tell this is a composite dossier tool rather than a single-source lookup like check_sanctions__screen 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?

'One-call' implies the tool is for when you want everything at once instead of stitching together individual lookups, which is useful implied guidance. However, it never explicitly names alternatives (e.g. x402check__diligence, check_sanctions__kyb, company_facts__snapshot) or states when-not to use it, leaving the agent to infer the tradeoff.

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?