Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Agentic AQUA

Agentic AQUA

Official
by AquaWallet
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

eulen_kyc_session

Creates or reuses a Noviuz-hosted KYC session for a logged-in JAN3 account, returning a session ID and verification URL for browser-based identity checks; indicates if already verified.

Instructions

Create or reuse a Noviuz Hosted KYC session through Ankara for a logged-in JAN3 account. Returns session_id and verification_url: give the URL to the user unchanged to open in their default browser, and treat both as credentials. Calling again within 30 minutes with the same parameters returns the same session. Returns status='already_verified' when the account already passed KYC. No CPF, name, e-mail, Pix data, documents, status assertion, or EUID is accepted from the client.

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": {
      "email": "<email>"
    },
    "name": "eulen_kyc_session"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYesJAN3 account email with a stored login session
wallet_nameNoLiquid mainnet wallet that receives the DePix for 'pix'default
amount_centsNoRequired with 'pix', rejected otherwise. Gross BRL cents (100 = R$1.00) paid by the user and sent back as DePix.
verification_methodsNootp = CPF + e-mail code (free); pix = CPF + a Pix payment delivered as DePix to the user's wallet. With both, the user picks on the Noviuz page.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses return values (session_id, verification_url), a 30-minute idempotency window, a terminal 'already_verified' state, and a security constraint (treat both values as credentials, hand the URL to the user unchanged). It also states an important negative behavior: no CPF, name, e-mail, Pix data, documents, status assertion, or EUID is accepted from the client.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and return contract, then idempotency, then the already-verified case, then the input-restriction caveat. Every clause carries actionable information with no filler.

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 4-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool it covers the essentials: what is returned, how to handle the URL, repeat-call behavior, and the pre-verified case. The notable gap is the downstream workflow — it never mentions that eulen_kyc_confirm exists to poll/confirm the verification, leaving the agent to infer the next step.

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 explains email, wallet_name, amount_cents, and verification_methods, including the pix/amount coupling and the otp-vs-pix tradeoff. The description adds only that the email must belong to a logged-in JAN3 account and that client-supplied identity data is rejected; it adds no new format or defaulting 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 and resource: 'Create or reuse a Noviuz Hosted KYC session through Ankara for a logged-in JAN3 account.' The create-or-reuse framing plus the named upstream providers makes it distinguishable from the sibling eulen_kyc_confirm without opening either schema.

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: call it for a logged-in JAN3 account, recall within 30 minutes is a no-op, and it returns 'already_verified' when KYC is already done, which tells the agent it need not re-run verification. It stops short of naming the follow-up sibling (eulen_kyc_confirm) or stating when-not-to-use conditions, so it is not a full routing statement.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools