Use when you have an address AND/OR entity name/domain and need a signed multi-list receipt. Prefer over lion_wallet_screen when you need more than OFAC SDN. $0.02 Base USDC. [x402 paid: GET /api/x402/multi-sanctions-bundle-json]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Entity/company name for multi-list screen | |
| domain | No | Optional domain trust check | |
| address | No | Crypto wallet for OFAC SDN address screen |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is paid ($0.02 USDC) and indicates the output is a signed receipt. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, what side effects exist, or how the signed receipt is produced. The cost and payment method provide some transparency, but more detail about data handling and limitations would be expected.
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 concise and front-loaded with the primary use case. It packs essential information (when to use, alternative tool, pricing, payment endpoint) into a few sentences without redundancy or filler.
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 has no output schema, so the description must clarify return value. It mentions a 'signed multi-list receipt' but does not specify which sanctions lists are covered (beyond implying multiple) or the structure of the receipt. It also lacks information on error handling, authentication requirements beyond payment, and any prerequisites. This is a moderate gap given the tool's complexity.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% since each parameter has a description. The description adds context by stating that the inputs are alternative combinations (address AND/OR entity), which aligns with the schema's optionality. However, it does not significantly deepen understanding beyond the schema's own descriptions, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool's purpose: obtaining a signed multi-list sanctions receipt given an address and/or entity name/domain. It uses a specific verb and resource and distinguishes itself from lion_wallet_screen by noting it goes beyond OFAC SDN.
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?
It explicitly provides usage context ('Use when you have an address AND/OR entity name/domain'), names a sibling alternative (lion_wallet_screen), and states the condition for preferring this tool ('when you need more than OFAC SDN'). It also gives pricing and payment details, which are practical usage considerations.
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.
Tools are largely distinct: enrich provides basic firmographics, research adds web intel, compliance bundle combines sanctions with domain data, wallet screen checks addresses, multi-sanctions covers broader lists. Some overlap exists between research/enrich/verified_file and between sanctions tools, but descriptions explicitly cross-reference when to use each. declare_need serves as a router to reduce ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent 'lion_' prefix with snake_case. Names are descriptive nouns or noun phrases (company_enrich, compliance_bundle, wallet_screen) rather than a strict verb_noun pattern, but the naming is uniformly structured and predictable. Minor deviation: lion_declare_need uses a verb, but the prefix and formatting remain consistent across the entire set.
With 8 tools, the count falls well within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool serves a distinct paid or free purpose in the company/compliance workflow, from lightweight enrichment to full attested dossiers and sanctions screening. No redundancy or missing essential function that would require adding or removing tools.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of company and compliance data needs: free teaser (quick_intel), basic enrichment, detailed research, sanctions screening (single and multi-list), a comprehensive compliance bundle, and a fully attested KYB dossier. The free router (declare_need) also helps agents navigate to the correct paid path, closing the gap of 'which tool do I start with'. No obvious missing operations for a read-only data provider.