Know Your Agent — ERC-8004 registry lookup + sanctions screening + signed JWT attestation for any wallet address. Returns agent registration status, operator wallet, screening results, and coldStartSignals. FREE.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Wallet address to check (e.g. 0xd8dA6BF26964aF9D7eEd9e03E53415D37aA96045) |
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 the core behaviors (registry lookup, screening, JWT attestation) and notes the tool is 'FREE', but it does not mention potential side effects, data handling, rate limits, or whether the JWT attestation involves any write/state-changing action. This is moderate transparency for a read-oriented lookup tool.
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 concise sentence that packs in the registry, screening, attestation, return fields, and cost. It is front-loaded with the key concept 'Know Your Agent' and has no redundant filler.
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 a solid overview of what it returns (registration status, operator wallet, screening results, coldStartSignals) and its purpose. It lacks some details like exact input format quirks or broader capability boundaries, but it is sufficient for tool selection.
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 single parameter 'address' is fully described in the schema with an example, and the description adds no extra information about the parameter itself. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate.
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 defines the tool's purpose as an ERC-8004 registry lookup combined with sanctions screening and signed JWT attestation. It names specific outputs like 'agent registration status', 'operator wallet', and 'coldStartSignals', which effectively distinguishes it from siblings such as 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 usage for checking any wallet address against an agent registry and sanctions screening, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like compliance_wallet or travel_rule_screen. No exclusions or comparative guidance are given.
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.