veradata

Name: veradata
Author: teodorofodocrispin-cmyk

by teodorofodocrispin-cmyk

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

VeraData — Verified Latin American Data for Autonomous AI Agents

M2M-native. x402 payments. Zero accounts. Zero API keys. Latin America first.
Built by the creator of Intelica and TrustBoost.

API: https://api.veradata.dev | Version: v1.6.0 | Countries: CO, MX, BR, CL, PE, AR
This repo contains the public interface, MCP server definitions, and developer kit. The core API is deployed at api.veradata.dev.

MCP Server (Model Context Protocol)

VeraData exposes a native MCP server at , compatible with Claude Desktop, Claude Code, Cursor, Windsurf, Smithery, and Glama.

Connect in Claude Desktop

Add to :

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "veradata": {
      "url": "https://api.veradata.dev/mcp"
    }
  }
}

Connect in Claude Code

claude mcp add veradata --url https://api.veradata.dev/mcp

MCP Tools

Tool	Description	Price
	Real-time LATAM central bank rates (CO, MX, BR, CL, PE)	/bin/sh.02 USDC
	Sanctions screening — OFAC + SARLAFT + CNBV + COAF + UAF	/bin/sh.05 USDC
	Company enrichment from RUES/CNPJ/RFC registries	/bin/sh.03 USDC
	AI-powered LATAM market intelligence (Claude Haiku)	/bin/sh.10 USDC

MCP Protocol

Transport: HTTP (Streamable HTTP, JSON-RPC 2.0)
Manifest:
Tools: with
Payment: x402 micropayments on Base () and Solana

Tool definitions are in .

Related MCP server: gocreative-mcp

The Problem This Solves

On June 28, 2026, Agentic Market has 1,357 x402 services. Person enrichment exists for the US and Europe. Sanctions screening exists for OFAC. Financial signals exist for BTC/ETH.

Nothing exists for Latin America.

No x402 service covers:

Colombian NIT / DIAN registry lookups
SARLAFT sanctions screening (mandatory for Colombian financial entities)
Brazilian CNPJ / Receita Federal verification
Mexican RFC / SAT status
LATAM central bank rates (DTF, TIIE, Selic)
Regional compliance verification for EU AI Act Art.13

This is a gap in a market processing $1.2M/day in agentic transactions. VeraData fills it.

What VeraData Is

A single FastAPI service with 5 endpoints, each payable per-call via x402 on Base and Solana. Pure M2M — no human interaction required. Any agent with a wallet can discover it via CDP Bazaar, Agentic Market, or 402 Index, pay in USDC, and receive structured JSON instantly.

Stack: FastAPI + Supabase + Render (same as Intelica/TrustBoost — proven in production)

Payment: x402 v2, CAIP-2 compliant (eip155:8453 + solana:5eykt4UsFv8P8NJdTREpY1vzqKqZKvdp)

Distribution: CDP Bazaar + Agentic Market + 402 Index (all channels proven with Intelica)

The 5 Endpoints

1. `POST /entity` — Entity Enrichment LATAM — `$0.03 USDC`

Given a company name + country, returns structured entity data from public registries.

// Request
{ "name": "Bancolombia", "country": "CO" }

// Response
{
  "nit": "890903938-8",
  "razon_social": "Bancolombia S.A.",
  "estado": "ACTIVA",
  "camara_comercio": "Bogotá",
  "fecha_constitucion": "1945-01-24",
  "representante_legal": "Juan Carlos Mora Uribe",
  "ciiu": "6412",
  "pep_check": false,
  "data_source": "RUES_CO",
  "verified_at": "2026-06-28T14:00:00Z"
}

Data sources: RUES (Colombia), Receita Federal (Brazil), SAT (Mexico), SRI (Ecuador), SBS (Peru)

Price: $0.03 — refreshed every 24h, cached in Supabase

2. `POST /sanctions` — Sanctions & Compliance Screen — `$0.05 USDC`

Screens an entity or person against LATAM + global sanctions lists. Returns risk score + EU AI Act compliant audit hash.

// Request
{ "name": "Juan García López", "country": "CO", "type": "person" }

// Response
{
  "risk_score": 0.02,
  "risk_category": "CLEAN",
  "lists_checked": ["OFAC_SDN", "SARLAFT_CO", "CNBV_MX", "COAF_BR", "UAF_CL"],
  "matches": [],
  "pep_status": false,
  "audit_hash": "sha256:abc123...",
  "compliance": ["EU_AI_ACT_ART13", "SARLAFT_2024", "FATF_R16"],
  "checked_at": "2026-06-28T14:00:01Z"
}

Lists covered:

🇨🇴 SARLAFT (Colombia) — updated daily
🇲🇽 CNBV Lista Negra (Mexico)
🇧🇷 COAF/BACEN (Brazil)
🇨🇱 UAF (Chile)
🌍 OFAC SDN (USA/Global)
🌍 UN Security Council Consolidated List
🌍 EU Consolidated Sanctions List

Regulatory moat: EU AI Act Art.13 enforcement begins August 2, 2026 — any European company with AI agents operating in LATAM needs this endpoint.

Price: $0.05 — highest margin module, mandatory for fintech

3. `POST /registry` — Business Registry Lookup — `$0.05 USDC`

Real-time lookup of business registration data from official public registries.

// Request
{ "identifier": "890903938", "country": "CO", "id_type": "nit" }

// Response
{
  "identifier": "890903938-8",
  "razon_social": "Bancolombia S.A.",
  "tipo_empresa": "Sociedad Anónima",
  "estado_juridico": "ACTIVA",
  "fecha_registro": "1945-01-24",
  "domicilio": "Medellín, Antioquia, Colombia",
  "objeto_social": "Actividades de banca comercial",
  "capital_suscrito_cop": 1076956260000,
  "registro_mercantil": "890903938-8",
  "renovado_hasta": "2026-12-31",
  "fuente": "Cámara de Comercio de Medellín",
  "verified_at": "2026-06-28T14:00:02Z"
}

Countries: Colombia (RUES + Cámaras), Mexico (SAT + IMSS), Brazil (CNPJ / Receita Federal), Chile (SRCeI), Peru (SUNARP/SUNAT)

Price: $0.05

4. `POST /rates` — Financial Signal LATAM — `$0.02 USDC`

Real-time rates and macro indicators from LATAM central banks. No AI — raw data, structured JSON, 5-minute cache.

// Request
{ "country": "CO", "signals": ["usd_cop", "dtf", "ipc_monthly"] }

// Response
{
  "country": "CO",
  "timestamp": "2026-06-28T14:00:03Z",
  "usd_cop": 4187.35,
  "dtf_ea": 10.85,
  "ipc_monthly_pct": 0.47,
  "ipc_annual_pct": 6.12,
  "banrep_rate_pct": 9.75,
  "trm_official": 4187.35,
  "source": "Banco de la República de Colombia",
  "cache_ttl_seconds": 300
}

Countries + signals:

🇨🇴 Colombia: TRM, DTF, IPC, IBR, tasa Banrep
🇲🇽 Mexico: TIIE, INPC, UDIS, tasa Banxico
🇧🇷 Brazil: Selic, CDI, IPCA, PTAX
🇨🇱 Chile: TPM, UF, IPC, USD/CLP
🇵🇪 Peru: BCRP rate, USD/PEN, IPC

Price: $0.02 — highest volume module, called every agent cycle

5. `POST /context` — Market Context LATAM — `$0.10 USDC`

AI-powered market context for a sector + country. Reuses Intelica's LLM layer but focused on LATAM. Returns regulatory environment, key players, market size, growth signals.

// Request
{ "sector": "fintech", "country": "CO", "query": "neobanks competitive landscape 2026" }

// Response
{
  "sector": "fintech",
  "country": "CO",
  "market_size_usd": "2.1B",
  "growth_rate_pct": 34,
  "key_players": ["Nequi", "Daviplata", "Rappipay", "Lulo Bank", "Movii"],
  "regulatory_framework": {
    "regulator": "Superintendencia Financiera de Colombia",
    "key_regulations": ["Decreto 1234/2023 sandbox", "SARLAFT 3.0", "Ley 1328 consumidor financiero"],
    "eu_ai_act_applicable": true
  },
  "market_signals": [
    "BancoEstado LATAM expansion signals 12% YoY neobank account growth",
    "SFC approved 3 new sandbox licenses Q1 2026"
  ],
  "audit_hash": "sha256:def456...",
  "source": "VeraData Market Context Engine v1.0"
}

Price: $0.10 — highest value, AI-powered, lowest frequency

Revenue Model

Endpoint	Price	Conservative calls/day	Revenue/month
`/entity`	$0.03	500	$450
`/sanctions`	$0.05	300	$450
`/registry`	$0.05	200	$300
`/rates`	$0.02	2,000	$1,200
`/context`	$0.10	100	$300
Total conservador		3,100/day	$2,700/month
Con 1 fintech activo		20,000/day	$18,000/month

Why /rates dominates: Agents de trading, DeFi, y treasury que operan en LATAM necesitan las tasas en cada ciclo — cada 5 minutos. 2,000 calls/day conservador es bajo para ese perfil.

Technical Architecture

Stack (100% reutilizable desde Intelica/TrustBoost)

FastAPI (Python 3.11)
  ├── x402 middleware (CDP Bazaar + PayAI)
  ├── Supabase (caché + audit log + rate limiting)
  └── Render (AWS us-east, misma infra)

Payment Stack:
  ├── CDP Facilitator (Bazaar indexing — probado)
  ├── PayAI (fallback — probado)
  └── Wallets: Base + Solana (mismas de Intelica)

Data Sources (todas públicas y gratuitas):
  ├── RUES Colombia — API pública
  ├── Receita Federal Brasil — scraping + API
  ├── SAT México — API pública
  ├── Banco de la República — API JSON
  ├── Banxico — SIE API (gratuita, registro simple)
  ├── BCB Brasil — API REST pública
  ├── OFAC SDN — descarga diaria CSV
  ├── SARLAFT — actualización mensual UIAF
  └── COAF/UAF/CNBV — listas públicas

Database Schema (Supabase)

-- Caché de entidades (evita llamadas repetidas a registros)
CREATE TABLE entity_cache (
  id BIGSERIAL PRIMARY KEY,
  identifier TEXT NOT NULL,
  country CHAR(2) NOT NULL,
  data JSONB NOT NULL,
  fetched_at TIMESTAMPTZ DEFAULT NOW(),
  expires_at TIMESTAMPTZ,
  UNIQUE(identifier, country)
);

-- Listas de sancionados (actualizadas diariamente)
CREATE TABLE sanctions_lists (
  id BIGSERIAL PRIMARY KEY,
  list_name TEXT NOT NULL,      -- OFAC_SDN, SARLAFT_CO, etc.
  entity_name TEXT NOT NULL,
  entity_type TEXT,             -- person, company
  country TEXT,
  identifiers JSONB,
  updated_at TIMESTAMPTZ DEFAULT NOW()
);

-- Tasas de cambio y macro (caché 5 minutos)
CREATE TABLE rates_cache (
  id BIGSERIAL PRIMARY KEY,
  country CHAR(2) NOT NULL,
  signal TEXT NOT NULL,
  value NUMERIC NOT NULL,
  fetched_at TIMESTAMPTZ DEFAULT NOW(),
  UNIQUE(country, signal)
);

-- Audit log x402 (mismo patrón de Intelica)
CREATE TABLE vera_audit (
  id BIGSERIAL PRIMARY KEY,
  seq_id BIGSERIAL,
  ip_hash TEXT,
  endpoint TEXT,
  country TEXT,
  network TEXT,
  price_usdc NUMERIC,
  trace_id UUID,
  audit_hash TEXT,
  created_at TIMESTAMPTZ DEFAULT NOW()
);

x402 Payment Flow (idéntico a Intelica — probado en producción)

Agent → POST /sanctions (sin X-PAYMENT)
Server → 402 + PAYMENT-REQUIRED header (con extensions.bazaar)
Agent → firma EIP-3009 con wallet Base
Agent → POST /sanctions + X-PAYMENT header
Server → CDP verify → CDP settle → extensions.bazaar → "processing"
Server → response JSON + audit_hash
CDP Bazaar → indexa automáticamente (probado Jun 28, 2026)

Build Plan — 4 Fases

Fase 1 — MVP: `/rates` + `/sanctions` (Semana 1)

Por qué estas dos primero:

/rates es el módulo de mayor volumen potencial y el más simple técnicamente — llamadas a APIs públicas de bancos centrales sin IA
/sanctions convierte TrustBoost existente en un módulo con LATAM coverage — 70% del trabajo ya está hecho

Deliverables:

Repo veradata con FastAPI base (fork de TrustBoost)
Scraper/fetcher de Banco de la República (Colombia)
Scraper/fetcher de Banxico (México)
Scraper/fetcher de BCB (Brasil)
Módulo de descarga y parsing de OFAC SDN CSV
Parsing de lista UIAF SARLAFT Colombia
Parsing de lista CNBV México
Endpoints /rates y /sanctions con x402
Deploy en Render
Registro en CDP Bazaar (proceso ya conocido)
Registro en 402 Index
Registro en Agentic Market

Revenue estimado Fase 1: $600-$1,800/mes

Fase 2 — `/entity` + `/registry` (Semana 2-3)

Integración RUES Colombia (API REST pública, sin auth)
Integración CNPJ Receita Federal (API pública)
Integración RFC SAT México (SOAP, parser)
Caché de 24h en Supabase
Endpoint /entity y /registry con x402

Revenue estimado Fase 2: $1,500-$4,500/mes acumulado

Fase 3 — `/context` (Semana 4)

Reutilizar LLM layer de Intelica (Claude Haiku)
Prompt especializado en mercados LATAM
Integración con /rates para contexto macro real-time
Endpoint /context con x402 ($0.10)

Revenue estimado Fase 3: $2,700-$8,000/mes acumulado

Fase 4 — Discovery y escala (Semana 5+)

Orthogonal skill registration (mismo proceso que Intelica PR #60)
awesome-x402 PR
Blog post técnico en dev.to con caso de uso real
TrustBoost cross-promotion (usuarios de TB → VeraData)
Intelica cross-promotion (análisis de mercado LATAM usa /rates y /entity)

Competitive Advantages

Por qué VeraData puede ganar

First mover en x402 LATAM — Agentic Market tiene 1,357 servicios. Cero para datos estructurados de Colombia, México, Brasil via x402. La ventana es de 6-12 meses.
EU AI Act como catalyst — Enforcement August 2, 2026. Empresas europeas con agentes IA en LATAM necesitan /sanctions para compliance Art.13. No es opcional.
Stack probado — FastAPI + Supabase + Render + x402 + CDP Bazaar ya están en producción con Intelica y TrustBoost. No hay que aprender nada nuevo.
Datos gratuitos — A diferencia de servicios como Clearbit ($99+/mes) o APIs comerciales de bureaus de crédito, las fuentes primarias de VeraData son todas públicas. Margen neto > 90%.
Demanda probada — /rates tiene análogo directo en servicios de alto volumen en Agentic Market (crypto liquidation maps, DeFi signals). El patrón de uso es idéntico pero para LATAM.
Intelica sinergy — El módulo /context reutiliza el grafo de 3,744 nodos de Intelica con foco LATAM. Un agente que usa Intelica para análisis competitivo puede llamar VeraData para datos macro en el mismo workflow.

Discovery Channels

El mismo playbook que funcionó con Intelica:

Canal	Acción	Tiempo
CDP Bazaar	Deploy + primer pago con `intelica_pay.html`	Día 1
402 Index	`curl -X POST https://402index.io/api/v1/register`	Día 1
Agentic Market	Auto-indexado via CDP Bazaar	Día 1
punkpeye/awesome-mcp-servers	PR (sección Security/Data)	Semana 1
xpaysh/awesome-x402	PR (sección Live Services)	Semana 1
Orthogonal	SKILL.md (mismo proceso PR #60)	Semana 2
402 Index TrustBoost	Ya verificado — cross-list VeraData	Semana 1

Key Decisions & Constraints

Regla de oro (heredada de Intelica/TrustBoost)

Nunca alterar el modelo central — todos los cambios son aditivos
Nunca borrar datos de Supabase sin confirmación explícita
Siempre CAIP-2 en accepts[]: eip155:8453 y solana:5eykt4UsFv8P8NJdTREpY1vzqKqZKvdp

Stack decisions

Python 3.11 — mismo que Intelica/TrustBoost, no cambiar
Claude Haiku — modelo LLM para /context ($0.10 precio justifica costo)
Supabase Colombia project — nuevo proyecto separado de Intelica y TrustBoost
Render free tier — suficiente para MVP, upgrade al primer $500/mes

Data freshness strategy

Endpoint	Cache TTL	Fuente
`/entity`	24 horas	Registros públicos (cambian raro)
`/sanctions`	24 horas	Listas actualizadas diariamente
`/rates`	5 minutos	APIs bancos centrales (tiempo real)
`/registry`	24 horas	Registros mercantiles
`/context`	1 hora	LLM + `/rates` real-time

Files Structure

veradata/
├── main.py              # FastAPI app principal
├── requirements.txt     # FastAPI, httpx, supabase, PyJWT, cryptography
├── .env.example         # Variables de entorno requeridas
├── README.md            # Este archivo
├── CONTEXT.md           # Historial de decisiones y sesiones
├── fetchers/
│   ├── banrep.py        # Banco de la República Colombia
│   ├── banxico.py       # Banco de México
│   ├── bcb.py           # Banco Central do Brasil
│   ├── rues.py          # RUES Colombia
│   ├── receita.py       # Receita Federal Brasil
│   └── sat.py           # SAT México
├── sanctions/
│   ├── ofac.py          # OFAC SDN downloader + parser
│   ├── sarlaft.py       # UIAF SARLAFT Colombia
│   ├── cnbv.py          # CNBV México
│   ├── coaf.py          # COAF Brasil
│   └── uaf.py           # UAF Chile
└── llms-full.txt        # Machine-readable docs para agentes

Environment Variables

# Supabase (nuevo proyecto VeraData)
SUPABASE_URL=
SUPABASE_SERVICE_KEY=

# x402 Payment
WALLET_ADDRESS=           # Base mainnet (misma de Intelica)
WALLET_SOLANA=            # Solana mainnet (misma de Intelica)
CDP_API_KEY_ID=           # organizations/xxx/apiKeys/xxx (mismo de Intelica)
CDP_API_KEY_SECRET=       # EC private key PEM

# LLM (solo para /context)
ANTHROPIC_API_KEY=

# Pricing
PRICE_ENTITY=0.03
PRICE_SANCTIONS=0.05
PRICE_REGISTRY=0.05
PRICE_RATES=0.02
PRICE_CONTEXT=0.10

# Banxico API (registro gratuito en sie.banxico.org.mx)
BANXICO_TOKEN=

Context & Provenance

VeraData es el tercer producto del mismo founder que construyó:

TrustBoost (api.trustboost.dev) — PII sanitization API, 500+ downloads en ClawHub, verificado en 402 Index, awesome-mcp-servers PR #6415 mergeado
Intelica (api.intelica.dev) — Competitive intelligence API, en CDP Bazaar y Agentic Market desde Jun 28, 2026, primer pago x402 via CDP facilitator verificado

El stack, el proceso de deployment, y el playbook de discovery están probados en producción. VeraData aplica las mismas lecciones aprendidas con velocidad de ejecución máxima.

Start Building

# Clonar y configurar
git clone https://github.com/teodorofodocrispin-cmyk/veradata-public-public
cd veradata
pip install fastapi uvicorn httpx supabase pyjwt cryptography anthropic

# Configurar variables
cp .env.example .env
# Editar .env con tus valores

# Correr localmente
uvicorn main:app --reload --port 8001

# Test /rates (primer endpoint a construir)
curl -X POST http://localhost:8001/rates \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{"country": "CO", "signals": ["usd_cop", "dtf"]}'
# → 402 Payment Required (correcto — x402 funcionando)

VeraData — Built in Bogotá, Colombia. Jun 28, 2026.

Available Tools

4 tools

vera_contextB

AI-powered LATAM market context. Sector + country → market_size, key_players, regulations, growth signals. $0.10 USDC via x402.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	No
`sector`	Yes
`country`	Yes

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the cost ($0.10 USDC via x402) and output categories, but lacks details on auth, rate limits, data freshness, or side effects. The 'AI-powered' claim gives minimal insight.

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?

The description is two sentences, highly concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence provides value without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 3 parameters and no output schema. The description lists return fields but no structure or example. For a simple tool, it is adequate but lacks completeness for an agent to fully understand return format or optional parameter usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% with no parameter descriptions. The description explains that sector and country are inputs for market context, but does not clarify the format or restrictions for the 'query' parameter (optional). The enum for country is in schema, but no further semantics added.

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 clearly states the tool provides 'AI-powered LATAM market context' with specific outputs (market_size, key_players, regulations, growth signals) and requires sector and country inputs. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like vera_rates, vera_sanctions, and vera_entity.

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 description implies usage for market context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings or provide any exclusions. Sibling names are mentioned but no guidance on selection criteria.

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

vera_entityB

Company enrichment from LATAM public registries: RUES CO, CNPJ BR, RFC MX. Returns NIT/CNPJ, status, representative, industry. $0.03 USDC via x402.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`country`	Yes
`identifier`	No

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must bear the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output fields and cost ($0.03 USDC via x402), but omits details like rate limits, authentication needs, or error behavior. It provides some transparency but is incomplete.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that includes purpose, scope, return fields, and cost. Every word serves a purpose, with no wasted text. Ideal conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and return values. It does not detail the output structure or all params, but it is sufficient for a straightforward enrichment tool. Slight gaps in completeness.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by linking country codes to registries (RUES CO, CNPJ BR, RFC MX) and implying identifier formats, but the 'name' parameter is unexplained. Partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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 clearly states it provides company enrichment from LATAM public registries, specifying the verb 'enrichment' and resource 'company'. It lists specific registries and return fields, making the purpose distinct from sibling tools like vera_rates and vera_sanctions, though not explicitly differentiating.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives context (LATAM registries) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. There are no exclusions or scenarios described.

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

vera_ratesA

Real-time central bank rates for LATAM countries (CO, MX, BR, CL, PE). Returns TRM, DTF, IBR, TIIE, Selic, UF. 5-min cache. $0.02 USDC via x402.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`country`	Yes
`signals`	No

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Discloses cache duration (5-min) and cost ($0.02 USDC via x402). No annotations provided, so description carries behavioral burden. Does not mention auth or rate limits, but adds useful operational details.

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 sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with key info: real-time, LATAM, countries, rates, cache, cost.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Provides core purpose, return values, and operational details. However, lacks explanation for signals parameter and return format. With no output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. Describes country parameter via listing countries, but signals parameter is not explained. Does not add meaning for signals beyond 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?

Clearly states the tool provides real-time central bank rates for LATAM countries, listing specific countries and rate names. Differentiates from sibling tools which are about sanctions, entity, and context.

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?

Describes the tool's context (LATAM countries, specific rates) but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools are in different domains, making usage clear by topic.

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

vera_sanctionsA

Sanctions screening — OFAC SDN + SARLAFT CO + CNBV MX + COAF BR + UAF CL. Returns risk_score 0-1 + EU AI Act Art.13 audit hash. $0.05 USDC via x402.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`name`	Yes
`type`	No	person
`country`	Yes

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals return values (risk_score range, audit hash) and cost ($0.05 USDC via x402), but omits details like authentication requirements, side effects, or error handling. Provides some transparency but not comprehensive.

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?

The description is a single, dense sentence that conveys all key information: function, target lists, output, and cost. No unnecessary words or repetition; highly efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description explains return values (risk_score and audit hash) and cost, which is helpful. However, it lacks details on error scenarios, the meaning of risk_score, or whether the tool modifies data. For a simple screening tool, it is adequate but has notable gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning to parameters. It implies 'name' and 'country' via context of sanctions screening and mentions the 'type' enum (person/company), but does not specify formats, constraints, or examples for any parameter. Insufficient compensation for lack of schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states 'Sanctions screening' and lists specific sanctions lists (OFAC SDN, SARLAFT CO, etc.), clearly defining the tool's scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vera_rates or vera_entity, which serve different purposes.

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 description implies the tool is for sanctions screening but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. Usage context is clear but lacks exclusions or comparison with siblings.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

4 tool updatesv1.0.0Jul 28, 2026
- First observedvera_context
- First observedvera_entity
- First observedvera_rates
- First observedvera_sanctions

Install Server

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool serves a distinct purpose: rates for financial benchmarks, sanctions for compliance, entity for company registry, and context for market intelligence. No overlap in functionality.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent 'vera_noun' pattern, making them easily recognizable and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools is a reasonable number for a specialized data provider, covering the core needs without being overwhelming.

Completeness4/5

The set covers essential LATAM data needs (rates, sanctions, entity, context), but lacks historical data or advanced search, which are minor gaps.

Maintenance

ActivitySlowing

ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

GitHub Repository

Need Help?

Related Servers

Related MCP Connectors

VeraData A
io.github.teodorofodocrispin-cmyk
Verified LATAM data for AI agents: sanctions, entity, rates, KYB. Pay via x402.
Legal & Compliance Finance Security
2
RESET Verifica B
com.resetparatodos
Deterministic Mexican/LatAm verification + sanctions & PEP screening for AI agents. Pay via x402.
Finance Legal & Compliance Payments & Billing
301
Polyform A
org.polyform
Pay-per-call data APIs for AI agents. USDC on Base via x402. 33 tools, no signup.
Cryptocurrency AI & Machine Learning
671
DataBR — API de Dados Públicos Brasileiros
io.github.igorpdev
Brazilian public data API for AI agents. BCB, IBGE, CVM, B3, compliance. x402 payments on Base.
Government Data Open Data Finance
2

Related MCP Servers

latamfx-mcp
Finance Open Data
floreskemec
A
license
A
quality
B
maintenance
Enables AI agents to query public Latin American FX rates and perform auditable ledger reconciliation using a multi-rule matching engine.
Updated 2 months ago (2026-07-02 01:48 UTC)
6
MIT
gocreative-mcp
Government Data Finance Cryptocurrency
ColinHughes2121
F
license
Not graded
quality
B
maintenance
Keyless, pay-per-call compliance & regulated-data tools for AI agents: OFAC wallet + sanctions/PEP + KYB screening, SEC filings, FRED economics, FDA recalls, federal awards, and continuous monitoring (watch a wallet/company/brand for status changes). USDC via x402 on Base/Solana, no API key, no signup.
Updated 2 months ago (2026-06-25 15:22 UTC)
-
veradata
Finance Government Data Research & Data
teodorofodocrispin-cmyk
F
license
A
quality
B
maintenance
MCP server providing verified Latin American data via x402 micropayments. 4 MCP tools: vera_rates (central bank rates CO/MX/BR/CL/PE), vera_sanctions (OFAC+SARLAFT+CNBV+COAF+UAF screening, EU AI Act Art.13), vera_entity (RUES/CNPJ/RFC enrichment), vera_context (AI market intelligence). $0.02–$0.10 USDC per call.
Updated 2 months ago (2026-06-28 22:21 UTC)
4
-
dyoe-agent-tools-mcp
Autonomous Agents Cryptocurrency Web Scraping
bjyoe2016
F
license
A
quality
C
maintenance
Pay-per-call tools for AI agents including trust checks, due diligence, market data, and human-verified approvals, settled in USDC on Base via the x402 protocol.
Updated 2 months ago (2026-07-01 10:19 UTC)
16
-

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/teodorofodocrispin-cmyk/veradata-public'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server

VeraData — Verified Latin American Data for Autonomous AI Agents

MCP Server (Model Context Protocol)

Connect in Claude Desktop

Connect in Claude Code

MCP Tools

MCP Protocol

The Problem This Solves

What VeraData Is

The 5 Endpoints

1. POST /entity — Entity Enrichment LATAM — $0.03 USDC

2. POST /sanctions — Sanctions & Compliance Screen — $0.05 USDC

3. POST /registry — Business Registry Lookup — $0.05 USDC

4. POST /rates — Financial Signal LATAM — $0.02 USDC

5. POST /context — Market Context LATAM — $0.10 USDC

Revenue Model

Technical Architecture

Stack (100% reutilizable desde Intelica/TrustBoost)

Database Schema (Supabase)

x402 Payment Flow (idéntico a Intelica — probado en producción)

Build Plan — 4 Fases

Fase 1 — MVP: /rates + /sanctions (Semana 1)

Fase 2 — /entity + /registry (Semana 2-3)

Fase 3 — /context (Semana 4)

Fase 4 — Discovery y escala (Semana 5+)

Competitive Advantages

Por qué VeraData puede ganar

Discovery Channels

Key Decisions & Constraints

Regla de oro (heredada de Intelica/TrustBoost)

Stack decisions

Data freshness strategy

Files Structure

Environment Variables

Context & Provenance

Start Building

Available Tools

Tool Schema Changelog

Maintenance

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

1. `POST /entity` — Entity Enrichment LATAM — `$0.03 USDC`

2. `POST /sanctions` — Sanctions & Compliance Screen — `$0.05 USDC`

3. `POST /registry` — Business Registry Lookup — `$0.05 USDC`

4. `POST /rates` — Financial Signal LATAM — `$0.02 USDC`

5. `POST /context` — Market Context LATAM — `$0.10 USDC`

Fase 1 — MVP: `/rates` + `/sanctions` (Semana 1)

Fase 2 — `/entity` + `/registry` (Semana 2-3)

Fase 3 — `/context` (Semana 4)