Structural validation of a Mexican RFC (sent as a JSON body, not a query param)
Structural validation of a Mexican RFC (sent as a JSON body, not a query param): persona física/moral, embedded date, SAT check digit, plus Article 69-B (EFOS) blacklist status.
Answeringour last check, 2026-09-24
1 of 1checks answered this week
321 msmedian answer time
$0.03listed price per call
$0.03price it asked us
Paid test badge: not yet. The checks above are free: we call the tool without paying and read the payment request it sends back. The Verified badge needs paid calls whose answers match the promised output, and nobody can buy a badge.
Endpoint
POST https://x402-api-24223879872.us-east1.run.app/v1/mx/rfc
| Category | Everything else |
|---|---|
| Provider host | x402-api-24223879872.us-east1.run.app |
| Networks | eip155:8453 |
| Payment schemes | exact |
| Self-reported calls, 30 days | 1 from 1 payers (the provider's figure, not ours) |
Our checks, last 30 days
| Day | Result | HTTP | Asked | Time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-24 | valid payment request | 402 | $0.03 | 321 ms |
Example input (from the provider)
{
"body": {
"rfc": "EKU9003173C9"
},
"bodyType": "json",
"method": "POST",
"type": "http"
}
Promised output schema (from the provider)
{
"$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
"properties": {
"input": {
"additionalProperties": false,
"properties": {
"body": {
"properties": {
"rfc": {
"description": "RFC to validate, e.g. EKU9003173C9",
"type": "string"
}
},
"required": [
"rfc"
]
},
"bodyType": {
"enum": [
"json",
"form-data",
"text"
],
"type": "string"
},
"method": {
"enum": [
"POST"
],
"type": "string"
},
"type": {
"const": "http",
"type": "string"
}
},
"required": [
"type",
"method",
"bodyType",
"body"
],
"type": "object"
},
"output": {
"properties": {
"example": {
"properties": {
"article69B": {
"description": "{ listed: false } | { error: 'unavailable' } | { listed: true, name, status, recordCount, records: [{ situacion, presuncion, desvirtuado, definitivo, sentenciaFavorable }] }. `status` is the most severe situacion across all records (definitivo > presunto > desvirtuado > sentencia_favorable) -- some RFCs have more than one record (one per procedimiento), so `status` alone (not the last record) is what to check.",
"properties": {
"error": {
"type": "string"
},
"listed": {
"type": "boolean"
},
"name": {
"type": "string"
},
"recordCount": {
"type": "integer"
},
"records": {
"items": {
"properties": {
"situacion": {
"enum": [
"presunto",
"desvirtuado",
"definitivo",
"sentencia_favorable"
],
"type": "string"
}
},
"type": "object"
},
"type": "array"
},
"status": {
"enum": [
"presunto",
"desvirtuado",
"definitivo",
"sentencia_favorable"
],
"type": "string"
}
},
"type": "object"
},
"checkDigitValid": {
"type": [
"boolean",
"null"
]
},
"date": {
"type": [
"string",
"null"
]
},
"flags": {
"items": {
"type": "string"
},
"type": "array"
},
"rfc": {
"type": "string"
},
"type": {
"enum": [
"fisica",
"moral",
"generic",
null
],
"type": [
"string",
"null"
]
},
"valid": {
"type": "boolean"
}
},
"type": "object"
},
"type": {
"type": "string"
}
},
"required": [
"type"
],
"type": "object"
}
},
"required": [
"input"
],
"type": "object"
}