ARM Verify — Entity Intelligence API

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must stand alone. It only discloses the API key requirement, but does not mention what the map returns, whether it modifies data, or any rate limits. This is insufficient for a tool that likely performs a lookup.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is only two sentences and gets to the point quickly. However, it omits critical information about parameters and behavior, making the conciseness a result of under-specification rather than effective summarization.

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

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

With 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain expected output, parameter usage, or integration with sibling tools. The API key note is the only context provided.

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

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

The schema has 4 parameters but 0% coverage in the description. The description does not explain the meaning of 'depth', 'entity_name', 'jurisdiction', or 'registration_number' beyond what the raw JSON schema shows. It fails to add value for parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Map' and resource 'ultimate beneficial ownership (UBO)', clearly indicating the tool's function. It is distinct from siblings like 'screen_sanctions', though not elaborately differentiated.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'verify_entity' or 'score_risk'. It only mentions an API key requirement, which is not usage guidance.

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

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the API key requirement and data sources, which is useful, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what errors or side effects might occur, or how the output is delivered. This is moderate transparency for a non-mutating scoring tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two crisp sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the API key requirement is presented as a second sentence, making it easy to scan.

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

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

The description omits the output format entirely, and there is no output schema to fill the gap. It also fails to explain how the three parameters interact, leaving the agent without enough context to reliably invoke the tool for varied uses.

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

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate, but it only explains 'jurisdiction' implicitly. It does not clarify what entity_name or sector contribute to the score, leaving their roles ambiguous.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: generating a 0-100 jurisdiction risk score using FATF and Basel AML Index. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like map_ownership and screen_sanctions.

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

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

The description implies when to use the tool (when a jurisdiction risk score is needed) and specifies a prerequisite (ARM Verify API key). However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it, so guidance is only implicit.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the API key requirement, which is a useful operational detail. However, it does not mention side effects, output format, or any limitations of the screening process, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and well-structured, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and the critical requirement (API key) in the second. Every word earns its place.

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

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

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and only a minimal description. It does not explain what kind of results the screening returns, how country filtering affects the lists, or how entity_type impacts the search. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters. It omits what 'entity_name', 'country', or 'entity_type' mean in the context of sanctions screening, forcing the agent to rely solely on the schema's sparse field names.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb 'Screen' and a specific resource: OFAC, UN, EU, and UK sanctions lists. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like map_ownership, score_risk, and verify_entity by focusing on sanctions screening.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only extra context is the API key requirement, but there is no comparison to sibling tools or explanation of scenarios where sanctions screening is appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by stating the authentication requirement (x-api-key header) and listing the output fields. However, it does not explicitly confirm whether the operation is read-only or mention error conditions or rate limits, leaving some gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with a clear verb and resource, and every word earns its place. It efficiently combines purpose and a key prerequisite without redundancy.

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

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

For a simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides a decent overview of return fields and an auth requirement. However, it is incomplete because it does not clarify the input parameters (especially registration_number) or provide usage guidance relative to sibling tools. These gaps undermine full completeness.

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

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

The input schema has 0% description coverage and the tool description does not explain any parameter meanings. It references the entity and jurisdiction only implicitly via the tool's purpose, and completely ignores the optional registration_number parameter. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('a business entity'), lists concrete return fields (registration status, incorporation date, legal standing, registered address), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like map_ownership, score_risk, and screen_sanctions, which have different purposes.

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

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

The description implies usage via the verb 'Verify' and mentions a prerequisite (ARM Verify API key), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. The usage context is clear enough for a straightforward lookup, but lacks explicit guidance.

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