Skip to main content
Glama

AurelianFlo

by com.aurelianflo

EDD Report

compliance_edd_report
Read-only

Build a paid enhanced due diligence memo for a wallet set using exact-match OFAC screening, sanctions evidence, and follow-up actions, returning structured JSON or an inline PDF/DOCX artifact. Use this for case handoff; use wallet_ofac_batch for screening-only results or report_pdf_generate/report_docx_generate only when the report payload already exists.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
assetNoOptional asset or network ticker filter such as ETH, USDC, XBT, TRX, ARB, or BSC.
addressesYesCrypto wallet addresses to screen for OFAC sanctions exposure and include in the enhanced due diligence memo.
case_nameNoOptional case or review title shown in the memo.
jurisdictionNoOptional jurisdiction or operating region for the case.
reference_idNoOptional internal case or review reference.
requested_byNoOptional requester, owner, or reviewing team.
subject_nameYesHuman-readable subject or counterparty name for the memo.
artifact_onlyNoWhen output_format is pdf or docx, return a compact artifact-first response without the full memo payload.
output_formatYesSelect json for the structured memo payload or pdf|docx for a generated artifact.
review_reasonNoOptional reason the EDD memo is being prepared.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNoPrimary structured result payload for the tool.
errorNoMachine-readable error code or message when the tool fails.
outputNoNested renderer output when a workflow bundles an artifact render.
reportNoReport-shaped payload when available; null for status-only retrieval responses.
sourceNoSource label, route, dataset, or execution metadata for the result.
messageNoHuman-readable error or status message.
successNoWhether the tool completed successfully.
artifactNoInline generated file artifact. The service does not persist a hosted download URL.
artifactsNoArtifact rendering hints keyed by format.
artifact_summaryNoDelivery and rendering metadata for an inline generated artifact.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, implying no state change, but the description says 'Build a paid enhanced due diligence memo,' which suggests a generative/write operation. This contradiction undermines transparency. No additional behavioral detail (e.g., side effects, auth needs) is provided beyond the conflicting hint.

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?

Two sentences; first sentence conveys action, resource, and output; second sentence provides usage guidance. No redundant words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given complexity (10 params, 3 required) and presence of output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and output format. It does not explain prerequisites or process flow, but remains sufficient for an agent to decide invocation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so description adds limited value beyond parameter names/types. However, it does mention 'exact-match OFAC screening' and 'sanctions evidence' which contextualize the addresses parameter. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Build', the resource 'paid enhanced due diligence memo for a wallet set', and the output 'structured JSON or inline PDF/DOCX artifact'. It also distinguishes from siblings by listing alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when to use ('Use this for case handoff') and when not to, giving specific alternative tools: 'wallet_ofac_batch for screening-only results' and 'report_pdf_generate/report_docx_generate only when the report payload already exists'.

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

All AurelianFlo toolsInspect
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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are generally distinct, with clear differentiators like single vs batch vs report output. The queue_saved_list and report_saved_retrieve could be confused but descriptions clarify their separate domains.

Naming Consistency4/5

Prefixes like compliance_, wallet_ofac_, report_, queue_ provide consistency within subdomains, though verb order varies (e.g., report_docx_generate vs queue_saved_list).

Tool Count4/5

11 tools are appropriate for a compliance server covering screening, reporting, and optimization. Slightly on the higher side but each tool serves a unique purpose.

Completeness4/5

Covers core workflows: screening, batch, reporting, EDD memos, exposure forecasting, queue optimization, and status checks. Minor gaps like no wallet set management, but overall comprehensive.

Resources