Complete country intelligence brief: compliance risk assessment + live economic data. For Mauritius (MU) includes all 7 oracle feeds (forex, macro, monetary, stock market, weather, fuel). Replaces 8 API calls. Costs $0.010 USDC via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country_code | Yes | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code (e.g. MU, SG, VG) |
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 discloses that the tool costs $0.010 USDC, is an aggregated call replacing 8 APIs, and includes specific oracle feeds for Mauritius. It does not mention side effects, prerequisites, or response format, but for a read-only intelligence brief, this is adequate.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: the scope for Mauritius, the aggregation benefit, and the cost. No wasted words.
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?
With one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, scope, cost, and aggregation behavior. It could be more explicit about the structure of the brief or potential limitations, but given the simplicity of the tool, it is sufficiently complete.
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 already provides a complete description of the single country_code parameter (ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 with examples). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so with 100% schema coverage, the baseline 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 produces a 'Complete country intelligence brief' combining compliance risk assessment and live economic data, and specifically notes it includes all 7 oracle feeds for Mauritius, distinguishing it from narrower sibling tools like compliance_jurisdiction_risk or forex_rates.
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 by saying 'Replaces 8 API calls,' indicating it's for consolidating data, and notes the cost. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or when to avoid using it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.
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.