Route a multi-currency Arc corridor to its per-currency home regimes and validate cross-currency settlement and Travel Rule — compliance layer, no FX economics. Per-currency jurisdiction/regime router across the partner-stablecoin set (art-111) → multi-currency PvP atomicity (511) → cross-border Travel-Rule batch validation (art-104). FX pricing is handled separately by the Arc StableFX economics chain.
route_partner_stablecoin_jurisdiction{
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"name": "route_partner_stablecoin_jurisdiction",
"arguments": {}
},
"id": 1
}
validate_pvp_settlement{
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"name": "validate_pvp_settlement",
"arguments": {}
},
"id": 1
}
validate_tfr_travel_rule_batch{
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"name": "validate_tfr_travel_rule_batch",
"arguments": {}
},
"id": 1
}
Copy this paragraph into Claude, OpenClaw, or any MCP-aware agent to run this whole workflow on the server and check one field that answers a real question.
Question: Two stablecoin legs make up the corridor, each under its own regime. Which required disclosures is a leg still missing before the routing verdict?
Run the AINumbers MCP tool `run_chain` with {"chain":"arc-multicurrency-corridor"} and read `art-111-arc-corridor-jurisdiction-router.disclosure_gaps`.
Re-run with `inputs` for `art-111-arc-corridor-jurisdiction-router`, reusing the values that result echoed, with `corridor_legs` changed so the EURC leg drops its AML program disclosure. Compare the same field.
Verify: call `verify_execution_hash` (https://mcp.ainumbers.co/mcp) with `claimed_hash` set to `composite_execution_hash` and the full `composite_artifact`.
Ledger, for a human re-check: https://ledger.ainumbers.co/
PII rule: send synthetic or anonymised inputs only. The MCP server runs these kernels and logs no payloads.
Chain page: https://ainumbers.co/chaingraph/chains/arc-multicurrency-corridor.html