Sanctions and risk screening for a Hedera account: tx patterns, counterparty risk. 1.0 HBAR.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes | Your HederaIntel API key | |
| account_id | Yes | Hedera account ID (e.g. 0.0.123456) or EVM address (0x...) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is known. The description adds useful context about the focus (tx patterns, counterparty risk) and the cost (1.0 HBAR), complementing the annotations.
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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose and the fee with no unnecessary words. Every piece of information 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?
For a read-only screening tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and cost clearly. It does not specify the exact return format, but the lack of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool make the description adequate.
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 provides full descriptions for both parameters (api_key and account_id) with 100% coverage, so the description is not required to add parameter details. It does connect account_id to the account under screening but adds no further parameter-level semantics.
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 the specific verb phrase 'Sanctions and risk screening' and identifies the resource 'Hedera account', then elaborates with 'tx patterns, counterparty risk'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like identity_verify_kyc or account_info.
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 sets a clear context: it is for sanctions/risk screening of Hedera accounts, which implies when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is evident from the wording.
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 resource and action (e.g., contract read vs. contract call vs. contract analyze; hcs monitor vs. hcs query vs. hcs understand). Even within closely related groups, descriptions clearly differentiate the specific purpose, so an agent is unlikely to select the wrong tool.
Most tools follow a domain_action pattern (e.g., contract_analyze, token_monitor, hcs_verify_record), but some are verb_noun (get_terms, confirm_terms) and a few are noun_noun (account_info, token_price, fixatum_score). While not perfectly uniform, the prefixes make the intended domain clear and the overall structure is readable.
With 25 tools, the server is on the heavy end of the typical MCP scope. While each tool serves a specific niche across multiple Hedera domains (contracts, HCS, tokens, identity, governance, Fixatum), the sheer number could increase selection complexity, but it remains within the borderline range rather than being excessive.
The server covers a broad range of read/analyze operations across major Hedera areas, plus essential write/verification capabilities (hcs_write_record, hcs_verify_record) and an onboarding flow (get_terms, confirm_terms). Minor gaps exist, such as no token transfer history or unregister/update for Fixatum, but the core analytical purpose is well covered.