Disambiguation router (ART-105) classifying ART/EMT-issuer cases (delegated to the existing stablecoin-compliance/reserve chains) vs CASP-service cases (Wave-20) -> audit receipt (cry-05). Prevents overlap; packages the MiCA suite.
scope_mica_token_and_service{
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"name": "scope_mica_token_and_service",
"arguments": {}
},
"id": 1
}
aggregate_execution_receipts{
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"name": "aggregate_execution_receipts",
"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: We are about to issue a payment token in the EU. Which MiCA route does the scoper assign when the token is an EMT?
Run the AINumbers MCP tool `run_chain` with {"chain":"mica-token-scoping"} and read `art-105-mica-token-service-scoper.classification`.
Re-run with `inputs` for `art-105-mica-token-service-scoper`, reusing the values that result echoed, with `inputs` changed so the token is an EMT and the activity is issuance. 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/mica-token-scoping.html