Get Mauritius macro-economic indicators (GDP, CPI, unemployment, tourism). Costs $0.002 USDC via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| indicator | No | Optional indicator (gdp, cpi, unemployment, tourism, fdi, trade, population). Omit for all. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly discloses a critical behavioral trait: the tool costs $0.002 USDC via x402. This is important for an agent deciding whether to call the tool. However, it does not mention response format, rate limits, or authorization details, so it is not fully transparent.
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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It opens with the action and resource, then attaches the cost detail. Excellent structure.
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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter), the schema covers all parameter details, and the description covers purpose and cost. No output schema exists, but for a data retrieval tool, the description and schema together are complete enough.
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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already lists all valid indicator values. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, only examples. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description does not hinder understanding but adds little.
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 retrieves Mauritius macro-economic indicators with specific examples (GDP, CPI, unemployment, tourism). The verb 'Get' identifies the action, and the resource is well-defined, distinguishing it from sibling tools like country_brief or govdata_search.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of preferred use cases, exclusions, or comparison with sibling tools. The purpose implies usage for macro indicators, but no explicit context is 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.