Probity Wallet Reputation

Get screening narrative

get_screening_narrative

Read-only

Retrieve the enhanced Probity review for a completed screen by its screeningId. Costs zero credits. Returns the narrative and the key concerns it raises. It is generated in the background after screen_address returns, so it may briefly be pending. Retry shortly if so.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`screeningId`	Yes	The rsr_... id returned by screen_address. Must reference a completed screen; the narrative can be pending for a few seconds right after the screen returns.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`address`	Yes	The screened address
`concerns`	Yes	Key concerns raised by the review
`narrative`	Yes	The enhanced review text
`reportUrl`	Yes	Link to the full report on the Probity dashboard
`screeningId`	Yes	The screen this review belongs to

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true), the description discloses zero-cost behavior, background generation, and eventual consistency with retry guidance. It also clarifies the return content. This adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then cost, output, and timing. Every sentence conveys essential information with no redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the single simple parameter, a rich schema, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, pending behavior, and retry guidance. It is sufficiently complete for a low-complexity read tool.

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 fully describes the single parameter (screeningId) including its format and the pending-state caveat. The description restates the origin but does not add new semantic information beyond the schema, so it earns the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a specific resource ('enhanced Probity review' / 'narrative'), and identifies the key identifier (screeningId). It clearly distinguishes from sibling list/history tools like get_screening_history and screen_address by focusing on a single screening's narrative.

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?

It states that the narrative is generated in the background after screen_address returns, thereby specifying a clear use case (after screening) and handling the pending state. It also notes the requirement for a completed screen. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for a single-purpose tool.

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

All Probity Wallet Reputation tools Inspect

Try in Browser

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

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Each tool has a distinct role: screen_address is the only credit-costing action, while get_credit_balance, histories, narrative, compare, and monitoring are clearly read/reporting tools. The only minor ambiguity is between get_screening_history and get_address_screening_history, but the descriptions clearly separate all-address history from single-address history.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant pattern is get_<noun>_<detail>, and screen_address is a clear imperative action. compare_screening_runs breaks the get_* pattern but still uses a recognizable verb-first structure, so naming is mostly consistent and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools is well-scoped for a wallet reputation screening service: one core action, a balance check, two history views, a narrative fetcher, a comparison tool, and monitoring events. Each tool has a clear purpose and none feel redundant or peripheral.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the core workflow: screen an address, retrieve narrative, review history, check credit, compare runs, and monitor events. A notable minor gap is the lack of a direct fetch for a single screening run by screeningId, though the history and compare tools partially work around this.

Resources

Need Help?