Query the current state of any in-flight async operation by operation_id.
WHEN TO USE: Use to poll the state of a pending_async operation when no webhook callback has arrived or to check progress. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do not poll more frequently than once per 10 seconds — use webhook delivery for real-time updates instead. 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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description correctly does not repeat them. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: cost is free with no key required, latency is ~50ms, and a rate limit of one poll per 10s to avoid over-polling. This helps an agent call the tool appropriately.
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 concise and well-structured: a front-loaded one-line core statement followed by short WHEN TO USE/WHEN NOT TO USE sections and cost/latency notes. Every sentence adds value with no redundant phrasing.
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 one-parameter polling tool, the description covers purpose, usage guidance, exclusions, cost, and latency, while annotations cover safety. The only minor gap is the absence of detail about the response format or possible status values, but 'current state' and 'check progress' sufficiently convey what is returned.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It links operation_id to 'any in-flight async operation' and 'pending_async operation', adding some contextual meaning beyond the raw parameter name. However, it does not explain the format, origin, or constraints of operation_id, leaving the agent to infer from the name 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Query the current state of any in-flight async operation by operation_id.' The WHEN TO USE section reinforces that it polls pending_async operations, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from siblings like get_outcome or check_compliance.
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?
Provides explicit WHEN TO USE (poll state when no webhook callback has arrived or to check progress) and WHEN NOT TO USE (do not poll more often than once per 10 seconds; use webhook delivery for real-time updates). This clearly differentiates the polling use case from the alternative and gives actionable constraints.
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.