Company Intel

Sanctions List Update Alert

sanctions-update-alert

Re-screens a saved watchlist against sanctions lists and returns only the entries whose status changed since the previous check. The first run creates the baseline and says so. — $0.05/call, x402 (USDC on base).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`names`	Yes	Person or company names to watch against the OFAC SDN and EU consolidated sanctions lists, one per row. Every scheduled run re-screens these same names and reports ONLY what changed since a previous run of this watch: a new hit, a hit that disappeared, or an existing hit's score/program/alias shifting.
`minScore`	No	Only consider candidate matches scoring at or above this (0 = everything, 1 = only a full token match). Kept soft on purpose — a missed hit is worse than a false one.
`max_items`	No	Caps how many new-hit / changed-hit rows a single run will deliver and charge for, even if more were found.
`baseline_key`	No	A name for THIS watch, so you can run several independent screening watches from one Actor (e.g. "vendor-list", "new-hires") without one overwriting another's memory of what's already been seen. Each name is scoped to YOUR OWN Apify account. The prefilled value is only there so this Actor's own daily test run has a stable, obviously-a-test name; replace it with your own watch name.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses cost ($0.05/call), payment method (USDC on base), the baseline behavior on first run, and the focus on changed statuses. This adds meaningful behavioral context, though it does not detail how the baseline is stored or retained.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences plus a pricing note, perfectly front-loaded with the core function. Every phrase adds value, and no words are wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a moderate-complexity tool, the description plus schema covers the essential behavior: what it checks, what it returns, baseline semantics, and cost. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit statement that only changed entries are returned, though the exact response format is unspecified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all four parameters, so the schema already carries the semantic burden. The description adds context about the baseline but does not materially expand parameter meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's specific function: re-screening a saved watchlist against sanctions lists and returning only status changes. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'sanctions-screening' tool, which presumably performs initial full screening.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description conveys clear usage context: it is for repeated checks against the same watchlist, with the first run creating a baseline. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use sanctions-screening for initial screening,' so it stops short of full exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Company Intel tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Several tools overlap in signal space: hiring-radar, hiring-trend-index, layoff-tracker, and intent-signal-aggregator all touch hiring; funding-alert vs funding-round-tracker, sanctions-screening vs sanctions-update-alert, and rollup tools vs individual checks create boundary ambiguity. However, each has a distinct output format, so descriptions help.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names are consistently lowercase with hyphens and descriptive noun phrases (e.g., company-hiring-radar, litigation-check), but pricing_info breaks the pattern with snake_case and a non-descriptive name.

Tool Count3/5

With 20 tools, the server feels heavy and covers a wide range of premium data services, but each tool does target a distinct data source or workflow, so it's borderline rather than excessive.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers company identity, hiring, litigation, sanctions, funding, and patents well, but lacks direct financials, ownership structure, and general news monitoring beyond funding/layoffs, leaving some sales-intelligence gaps.

Resources

Need Help?