Map ultimate beneficial ownership (UBO) using GLEIF Relationship API, Companies House PSC Register (UK), and OpenCorporates corporate network.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| depth | No | Ownership chain depth (1-3) | |
| entity_name | Yes | Company name | |
| jurisdiction | Yes | ISO 2-letter country code (e.g. GB, DE, US) | |
| registration_number | No | Company registration number — improves UK PSC lookup accuracy |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It lists data sources but does not explain what is returned, how failures and gaps are handled, how jurisdictions are treated, or what side effects (if any) exist. An agent cannot foresee whether missing data, network errors, or multi-source conflicts will occur.
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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. The data-source list carries useful scope information without requiring extra length.
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 is a multi-source UBO discovery operation with no output schema or annotations. The description does not explain what the returned ownership map looks like, how depth is applied, what coverage limitations are (e.g., UK PSC applicability), or what happens when data is missing. An agent cannot fully predict tool behavior without additional information.
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 covers all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond implying that entity_name and jurisdiction are relevant to the UBO search; it does not explain optional parameters like depth or registration_number or their interaction with data sources.
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 ('Map') and resource ('ultimate beneficial ownership'), and specifies data sources (GLEIF, Companies House PSC Register, OpenCorporates). This clearly differentiates it from siblings that score risk, screen sanctions, or verify entities.
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 a use case: mapping ownership chains and UBOs. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over the sibling tools, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct intelligence function: ownership mapping, jurisdiction risk scoring, sanctions screening, and entity verification. While some data sources overlap, the purpose and output of each tool are clearly separable.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: map_ownership, score_risk, screen_sanctions, verify_entity. The verb clearly indicates the action and the noun clearly indicates the subject, making the naming predictable and intuitive.
Four tools is a well-scoped set for an entity intelligence API. Each tool covers a meaningful and distinct part of the domain without redundancy or bloat.
The core entity intelligence workflow is covered: verify the entity, check ownership, assess risk, and screen for sanctions. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit search/discovery tool or historical monitoring, but the primary lifecycle is complete.