Check monitoring subscription status. Re-screens the subscribed wallet/entity against the latest database and returns current alert state. Costs $0.003 USDC via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| subscription_id | Yes | Subscription ID (MON-XXXXXX-XXXXXXXX) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the cost of $0.003 USDC via x402 and implies a read-only re-screening operation, but it does not explicitly state whether the tool makes any modifications or requires specific permissions. This is a partial disclosure but not comprehensive.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the cost detail. Every word contributes value without redundancy, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and the cost associated. It leaves some ambiguity about the exact format of the returned alert state, but given the straightforward nature of the operation, the description is nearly complete. A minor gap is the lack of explicit alternative guidance, but the sibling context helps fill that.
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 full description of the subscription_id parameter, including its format (MON-XXXXXX-XXXXXXXX), so the description adds no additional semantic value. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the tool description does not need to repeat what the schema already defines.
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's function: 'Check monitoring subscription status' and further specifies it re-screens the subscribed entity against the latest database to return the current alert state. This goes beyond a simple verb-noun pairing and distinguishes it from sibling tools like monitor_subscribe, which handles creation rather than status checks.
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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to check the status of a monitoring subscription and retrieve the latest alert state. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is evident enough to avoid confusion with the subscription creation tool.
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.