Skip to main content
Glama

AurelianFlo

by com.aurelianflo

Compliance Review Queue Optimizer

compliance_queue_optimize
Read-only

Optimize a compliance review queue using current OFAC exact matches, future exposure probabilities, exposure value, relationship tier, recency, and reviewer capacity. Use this when review_items and review_budget are known; use compliance_exposure_forecast for probability-only analysis or compliance_edd_report for a case memo.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
assetNoOptional asset or network ticker filter such as ETH, USDC, XBT, TRX, ARB, or BSC.
titleNoOptional report title.
priorsNoExplicit prior assumptions used only when overriding OFAC history cadence.
objectiveNoOptimization objective.
iterationsNoForecast trial count.
horizon_daysNoForecast horizon in days.
review_itemsYesWallet review items with per-address metadata required for queue optimization.
tier_weightsNoRelationship tier weight overrides.
review_budgetYesNumber of items a reviewer can handle in the next review window.
summary_focusNoOptional summary emphasis or focus area.

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation; no contradiction. It adds context about computation inputs but doesn't detail output or side effects. With annotations covering safety, this is acceptable.

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, no filler. The first sentence states purpose and inputs, the second gives usage guidance. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 a complex input schema (10 params, nested objects), output schema exists, and annotations are present, the description is largely sufficient. It could have explained what 'optimize' produces (e.g., a ranked list), but the output schema likely fills that gap.

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 each parameter has a description. The description's mention of factors like 'current OFAC exact matches' adds some high-level context but doesn't deepen understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Optimize a compliance review queue' and lists the specific factors used. It also distinguishes from siblings by name-dropping alternative tools for different use cases.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Use this when review_items and review_budget are known; use compliance_exposure_forecast for probability-only analysis or compliance_edd_report for a case memo.' Clearly specifies when to use and when not, with named alternatives.

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