Get composite risk score for any of 179 countries — FATF grey/blacklist, CPI, Basel AML Index. Costs $0.001 USDC via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country_code | Yes | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code (e.g. MU, US, RU, IR) |
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 adds valuable non-obvious context by disclosing the exact cost and payment method ($0.001 USDC via x402), which is a critical behavioral trait. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation. It does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior, but for a simple lookup tool this is reasonable.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a concise cost note. No filler or redundant information; every word contributes to understanding the tool.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it specifies the tool's purpose, coverage (179 countries), data sources, and cost. It does not describe the return format, but the tool name and description clearly imply a risk score, making it complete enough for an agent to select and invoke 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 for country_code has 100% coverage, including ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 format and examples (MU, US, RU, IR). The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('composite risk score for any of 179 countries'), and names the three data sources (FATF grey/blacklist, CPI, Basel AML Index). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compliance_watchlist or country_brief, which serve different purposes.
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 implies usage for country-level compliance risk assessment but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives such as country_snapshot or due_diligence. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so guidance is only implied.
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.
Several tools have overlapping purposes: compliance_wallet, compliance_watchlist, and compliance_wallet_entity all screen for sanctions; transaction_screen and travel_rule_screen both screen transaction parties; country_brief and country_snapshot both provide Mauritius economic data. Detailed descriptions help but an agent could easily misfile a query.
Tool names are predominantly snake_case but follow no consistent pattern. Some use compliance_ prefix, others are action-based (network_scan, govdata_search), some are noun-only (forex_rates, weather). 'facilitator_kya' is particularly opaque.
22 tools is on the high end. While many serve distinct compliance functions, the inclusion of seven Mauritius-specific data feeds (forex, fuel, weather, etc.) expands the surface beyond a focused compliance tool, making the set feel cluttered.
Core compliance workflows (screening, monitoring, transaction, travel rule) are covered, but there are gaps: no monitor_unsubscribe, no tool to verify travel rule packets, and economic data is only available for Mauritius despite global compliance scope. This creates dead ends for users who need to manage or verify compliance actions.