Retrieve the final OutcomeReceipt for a completed operation.
WHEN TO USE: Use after get_status returns success/failure/partial to retrieve the full result with cost and reason codes. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do not use for operations still in pending/executing state — use get_status first. COST: free - no key required LATENCY: ~50ms
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: free/no key required, ~50ms latency, and the constraint that only completed operations yield a result. This is good supplementary transparency, though it does not detail failure modes or response shape.
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 tightly organized into purpose, when-to-use, when-not-to-use, cost, and latency sections. Every sentence adds useful information, and the primary action is front-loaded with no fluff.
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 read-only tool, the description covers purpose, usage conditions, cost, latency, and what the result contains (cost and reason codes). It does not explicitly state where the operation_id comes from or describe error behavior, but the get_status reference largely covers the provenance.
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 0%, and the description does not explicitly define operation_id or its format. However, it provides implicit context by saying the tool is used after get_status, which lets the agent infer that operation_id identifies the operation whose status was checked. This is minimal but usable guidance for a single obvious parameter.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve the final OutcomeReceipt for a completed operation.' It clearly scopes the tool to completed operations and distinguishes it from get_status by saying it is used after get_status reports status.
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?
Explicit WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE sections are provided, including the exact condition ('after get_status returns success/failure/partial') and the alternative tool to use instead for pending/executing states. This leaves no ambiguity about sequencing.
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.
Most tools target clearly distinct compliance subdomains: messaging compliance, sanctions screening, trade restrictions, company verification, and cost preview. The main overlap is between map_trade_restriction and screen_sanctions, since both screen parties against sanctions lists, but their descriptions differentiate trade-level screening from dedicated name screening well enough.
Tool names mostly follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: check_compliance, get_outcome, get_status, preview_cost, screen_sanctions, verify_company_record. self_test is the one minor deviation since it reads more like a noun than an imperative verb_object name, but it does not break the overall pattern.
Eight tools is a well-scoped size for a compliance pre-flight server. Each tool has a distinct role, and the count is neither bloated nor too thin for the apparent domain.
The core compliance workflows are covered: messaging pre-flight checks, sanctions screening, cross-border trade restrictions, company registry verification, and cost/status helpers. The main gaps are intentional exclusions like PEP screening, export-control product classification, and consent management, which are documented but prevent the set from being a fully comprehensive compliance suite.