Screen a named entity across federal exclusion/sanctions lists (OFAC SDN, OFAC Consolidated, OIG LEIE; SAM where enabled) via the live exclude-feed. FCRA-safe KYB/sanctions screen, not a consumer report.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| npi | No | ||
| uei | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| state | No |
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 reveals that it screens via a 'live exclude-feed' and is 'FCRA-safe', but does not disclose behavioral aspects like whether it modifies state, requires authentication, or rate limits. It is a read-only lookup, but this is not explicitly stated.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. However, it could be improved by splitting to cover parameter details or usage notes. It earns its place but sacrifices completeness for brevity.
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 output schema and 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, the description is incomplete. It provides the list of databases and compliance note but fails to explain the function of optional parameters, return values, or error scenarios. The agent lacks essential context to use 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?
The input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, yet the description only mentions 'name' implicitly via 'named entity'. It fails to explain the semantics of 'npi', 'uei', and 'state' – what they represent or how they affect the screening. This leaves the agent guessing about optional identifiers.
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 verb 'Screen a named entity' and the specific resource: federal exclusion/sanctions lists (OFAC SDN, OFAC Consolidated, OIG LEIE; SAM where enabled). It distinguishes itself from consumer reports with 'FCRA-safe' and specifies it's for KYB/sanctions screening, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings (build_evidence_pack, ground_claim, verify_pack). It implies usage for sanctions screening but provides no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives for different use cases like claims verification or evidence building.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: building an evidence pack, grounding a claim, screening an entity, and verifying a pack. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (build_evidence_pack, ground_claim, screen_entity, verify_pack), making them predictable.
With only 4 tools, the server is tightly scoped to the core workflow of building, grounding, screening, and verifying compliance evidence. Each tool earns its place.
The tool surface covers the essential lifecycle for compliance evidence: creation, verification, and supporting checks. A minor gap is the absence of a tool to retrieve pack details without verification, but this is not critical.