Entity relationship intelligence: finds all watchlist hits, traverses entity relation graph, screens connected entities, produces risk network map with composite scoring per node. Replaces 10-20 API calls + manual graph analysis. Costs $0.015 USDC via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| depth | No | Graph traversal depth: 1 (direct connections) or 2 (connections of connections). Default: 1 | |
| query | Yes | Entity name to scan (e.g. 'Global Capital Ltd') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the cost ($0.015 USDC via x402), the traversal behavior, and the output (risk network map with composite scoring). However, it omits potential rate limits, error conditions, or the exact format of the map, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
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 function, followed by a value proposition and cost. Every clause earns its place with no filler or redundancy.
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 tool with no output schema, the description explains the output (risk network map with composite scoring) and mentions cost and the replacement of manual work. It doesn't cover performance or failure modes, but for a 2-parameter tool with clear purpose, this is reasonably 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by linking 'depth' to 'traverses entity relation graph' and 'query' to 'Entity name to scan,' but it doesn't significantly enhance the parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 uses specific verbs and nouns: 'finds all watchlist hits, traverses entity relation graph, screens connected entities, produces risk network map with composite scoring per node.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like compliance_watchlist (simple hit check) or due_diligence, emphasizing graph traversal and network output.
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 when to use it: when you need entity relationship intelligence and want to avoid 10-20 API calls plus manual analysis. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'replaces' phrasing gives strong usage context. However, it could be more explicit about when not to use it.
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.