Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Qiniso

Qiniso

Official
by qinisolabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

validate_sedol

Validate a SEDOL (LSE securities identifier) by checking its no-vowels alphabet and weighted mod-10 check digit.

Instructions

USE THIS to verify a SEDOL (LSE securities identifier) before relying on it. Checks the no-vowels alphabet and the weighted mod-10 check digit.

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": {
      "sedol": "<sedol>"
    },
    "name": "validate_sedol"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sedolYesThe 7-character SEDOL, e.g. B0YBKJ7.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the validation algorithm ('no-vowels alphabet and weighted mod-10 check digit'), which is sufficient for a read-only validation tool.

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?

Two concise sentences: an imperative usage instruction followed by the validation details. No wasted words.

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 simple validation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it does and what it checks. It does not mention return format but that is typical for such tools.

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% and the parameter description in the schema is identical to the tool description ('The 7-character SEDOL, e.g. B0YBKJ7'). Description adds no new information beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'verify' and the specific resource 'SEDOL (LSE securities identifier)', distinguishing it from sibling validators for other identifiers.

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?

Description explicitly says 'USE THIS to verify a SEDOL before relying on it', providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives but is implied by the specific resource name.

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