ARM Verify — Entity Intelligence API

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only discloses the API key requirement. It does not reveal whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or has other behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, data volume).

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 very concise at two sentences, with the core action in the first sentence. No fluff, though it could benefit from additional structure.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the tool's output, how depth works, or what registration_number means, leaving significant gaps for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning no parameters are described in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters (entity_name, jurisdiction, depth, registration_number), leaving agents to infer their meaning from names alone.

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 'Map ultimate beneficial ownership (UBO)', providing a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like score_risk or screen_sanctions. However, the verb 'map' could be interpreted more broadly, lacking a precise action like 'retrieve' or 'enumerate'.

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 mentions a prerequisite (ARM Verify API key) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context for ideal usage scenarios.

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 fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the methodology and API key requirement but omits critical details: the return format (just a number? object?), whether it is read-only or has side effects, error conditions, or rate limits. This is insufficient for full transparency.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that front-load the core action and methodology, then add the key requirement. Every sentence is functional and information-dense, with no wasted words.

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?

Given 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should provide more context about inputs, outputs, and usage. It lacks return value specification, parameter explanations, and any guidance on using the optional sector field. The description is too sparse to be considered complete.

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 coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema) and the description provides no parameter explanations. It does not clarify the roles of entity_name, jurisdiction, or sector (e.g., whether sector filters the score source). The description fails to add any meaning beyond the bare property 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 generates a 0-100 jurisdiction risk score using specific indices. It distinguishes from siblings which focus on ownership, sanctions, and verification. However, it does not fully clarify whether the score is purely jurisdiction-level or entity-specific within a jurisdiction, given the entity_name parameter.

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 only usage guidance is the requirement for an ARM Verify API key. There is no information on when to prefer this tool over the siblings (e.g., for entity-level risk scoring vs. sanctions screening) or when not to use it. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use scenarios are provided.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the API key requirement but omits any details on side effects, idempotency, or data impact. With zero annotations, a score of 3 indicates minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 sentences deliver the essential information with no extraneous content, achieving maximum brevity while maintaining clarity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It fails to describe param usage, return values, or behavioral nuances beyond the API key requirement.

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 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any parameter (entity_name, country, entity_type), leaving the agent without guidance on how to use them.

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 'Screen' and identifies the resource as 'OFAC, UN, EU, and UK sanctions lists,' clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like map_ownership or verify_entity.

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?

It states the prerequisite (API key) but does not explicitly define when to use this tool versus alternatives, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool verifies a business entity and lists data points, plus the API key requirement. However, it does not disclose rate limits, error handling, data freshness, or whether the operation is read-only. These gaps reduce transparency.

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 sentences, no fluff. First sentence states purpose and outputs; second sentence states authentication requirement. 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers core purpose and auth but omits return format, error conditions, and detailed parameter guidance. An agent would need additional context to use it correctly, especially for handling responses and errors.

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 has 0% parameter description coverage. The description lists what is verified (registration status, etc.) but does not explain the purpose of each parameter (entity_name, jurisdiction, registration_number) or how they relate. For example, jurisdiction is required but not described. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Verify a business entity' and lists specific aspects checked (registration status, incorporation date, legal standing, registered address). This distinguishes it 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 mentions the authentication requirement (ARM Verify API key via x-api-key header), but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No exclusions or context for when not to use are given, leaving the agent to infer based on sibling names.

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