Compound entity screening package: watchlist screening + jurisdiction risk for detected nationalities + Mauritius FSC check + forex context + composite risk score. Replaces 5 separate API calls. Costs $0.010 USDC via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Entity name for due diligence (e.g. 'Acme Corp', 'John Smith') | |
| include_forex | No | Include forex rates for detected jurisdictions (default: true) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well by disclosing the packaged scope, the cost of $0.010 USDC via x402, and the efficiency benefit of replacing 5 calls. However, it does not describe the output format or limitations of the composite risk score, leaving some behavioral detail unspecified.
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 consists of two compact sentences that front-load the package components and then add cost and efficiency. Every word contributes meaningful information with no redundancy or fluff.
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?
Given the complexity of this compound tool and no output schema, the description gives a solid high-level overview but omits details about the composite risk score's meaning, return value, or what 'forex context' entails. This is adequate but has clear gaps for an agent needing to trust or interpret the 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the phrase 'forex context' which loosely maps to include_forex but does not enrich parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states.
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 identifies a compound screening package with specific components (watchlist, jurisdiction risk, Mauritius FSC, forex, composite risk) and positions it as an aggregation that replaces five separate API calls. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compliance_watchlist or compliance_jurisdiction_risk.
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 when comprehensive due diligence is needed and mentions it replaces 5 separate API calls, but it does not explicitly state when to use individual compliance tools instead or provide exclusions. This is implied usage rather than clear guidance.
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.