Compound Web2+Web3 screen: wallet address + entity name in one call with convergence detection. Bridges blockchain wallets to traditional sanctions databases. Costs $0.003 USDC via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list | No | Entity list filter (default: all) | |
| name | No | Entity or person name for cross-reference (optional) | |
| chain | No | Chain hint: btc, eth, trx, auto (default: auto) | |
| address | Yes | Blockchain wallet address (any chain) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful details about cost ($0.003 USDC via x402) and the cross-referencing nature, but it does not disclose potential side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or return format. The cost disclosure is a positive, but other behavioral aspects remain opaque.
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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Compound Web2+Web3 screen'), and every sentence adds value: function, integration, and cost. No redundant or filler content.
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 description conveys the core purpose and cost but lacks details about output structure, error handling, or edge cases (e.g., what 'convergence detection' returns, timeout behavior). With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context to fully prepare the agent. It's adequate but not comprehensive.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds a high-level mapping ('wallet address + entity name') but does not elaborate on parameter syntax, defaults, or interactions beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.
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: a combined Web2+Web3 screen using wallet address and entity name with convergence detection. It distinguishes from sibling tools like compliance_wallet (wallet-only) and compliance_watchlist (generic list) by emphasizing the compound nature and the bridge to traditional sanctions databases.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when needing to combine a wallet address with an entity name and detect convergence across blockchain and traditional databases. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some room for inference based on sibling tool names.
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.