Screen any entity against comprehensive global watchlist records (OFAC, UN, EU, PEP, Interpol, crypto). Costs $0.005 USDC via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list | No | Watchlist to search. Default: all | |
| query | Yes | Entity name to screen (e.g. 'Vladimir Putin', 'Tornado Cash') | |
| threshold | No | Match confidence 0.0-1.0. Default: 0.75 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It adds the cost ($0.005 USDC) and enumerates the watchlist sources, but it does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., matches with confidence scores), rate limits, or potential false positive handling. The absence of output schema amplifies this gap.
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, information-dense sentence that includes purpose, scope, and cost without extraneous wording. It is well-structured and front-loaded.
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 and no annotations, yet the description does not describe the expected response format or the behavior when no matches are found. It also lacks information on pagination or error handling. Given the moderate complexity, the description is not fully complete for an agent to anticipate the tool's output.
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?
All three parameters are already described in the schema with complete coverage (100%). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not elevate it.
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 a specific verb ('Screen') and clearly identifies the resource ('global watchlist records'), listing major list types (OFAC, UN, EU, PEP, Interpol, crypto). This distinguishes it from sibling compliance tools like compliance_wallet or transaction_screen.
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 when to use (for screening entities against global watchlists) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. There is no exclusion criteria or comparison to sibling tools like transaction_screen or travel_rule_screen.
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.