Retrieve the full record for a single sanctions listing by its ID (format: ${source}:${source_list_id}, e.g. "ofac:12345" or "eu:EU.123.789").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Internal listing ID, e.g. "ofac:12345". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, already indicating a safe, open-world read. The description adds that it returns the 'full record', which is useful behavioral context about the response. The ID format is also meaningful beyond the annotations.
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?
A single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every piece of information (ID format, examples) is directly useful and not redundant with the schema or annotations.
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 one-parameter retrieval tool with readOnly annotations, the description is complete. It specifies what it does, how to identify the listing, and the scope of the return ('full record'). No output schema is needed for this simplicity.
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% and the id property already includes an example, but the description goes further by stating the general pattern (`${source}:${source_list_id}`) and giving a second example (eu:EU.123.789), adding clarity beyond the schema alone.
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 action ('Retrieve'), the resource ('full record for a single sanctions listing'), and the method ('by its ID'), distinguishing it from sibling search/check tools. The specific ID format and examples make the purpose unambiguous.
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 makes it clear that this tool is for retrieving a listing when an ID is known, with the format requirement. It does not explicitly contrast with search tools, but the context signals (sibling names like search_entity) imply those are for discovery vs. this for direct lookup.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct search method (exact ID, Czech IČO, fuzzy entity, fuzzy person) or monitoring use case (recent updates), with no functional overlap.
All tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (check_ico, get_listing, list_recent_updates, search_entity, search_person) using consistent snake_case.
Five tools provide a focused yet comprehensive interface for sanctions queries, covering exact lookup, fuzzy search, and monitoring without unnecessary bloat.
The set covers all core read operations for a sanctions checking system: exact ID lookup, fuzzy name search for entities and persons, and update monitoring. No obvious gaps for the domain.