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 safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing COST: free - no key required and LATENCY: ~50ms, helping the agent understand cost and latency implications. It does not describe the response shape, but that is partially covered by the tool's purpose.
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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by clear WHEN TO USE / WHEN NOT TO USE sections, then concise cost and latency. Every section contributes useful information without padding or repetition.
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?
The description covers purpose, usage guidance, cost, latency, and polling restrictions, which is strong for a simple one-parameter read-only tool. Missing is any indication of the expected response fields or possible state values, but no output schema exists, so some return-format guidance would have been useful. Overall, the tool is well-specified for selection and invocation.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the sole parameter. It clarifies that operation_id identifies an in-flight async operation, which is exactly the needed context. It does not provide format or example values, but the meaning is sufficiently conveyed for correct invocation.
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 action ('Query the current state of any in-flight async operation') and identifies the key identifier (operation_id). It is clear on the resource and purpose, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool get_outcome, which may also relate to async operation results.
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 explicitly provides WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE sections, including a concrete polling cadence (not more than once per 10 seconds) and directs users to webhook delivery for real-time updates. This gives the agent clear guidance on when to invoke this tool versus an alternative mechanism.
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 distinct actions, but screen_sanctions and map_trade_restriction both screen parties against OFAC/EU/UK sanctions lists, so the same party-screening request could plausibly route to either. check_compliance also uses a broad 'compliance' name, though its messaging-specific parameters help separate it. The detailed descriptions largely mitigate the ambiguity, but the overlap is real.
Seven of eight tools follow a clear snake_case verb_noun pattern (check_compliance, get_status, screen_sanctions, verify_company_record). self_test breaks the pattern as a noun-style name rather than an imperative verb_noun, but it remains lowercase and readable. Overall naming is predictable and consistent.
Eight tools is a well-scoped size for a compliance/screening service, and each tool has a distinct operational role. The supporting helpers (get_status, get_outcome, preview_cost, self_test) are justifiable parts of the full workflow rather than padding.
Core due-diligence workflows are covered: sanctions screening, trade-restriction mapping, company verification, and messaging-compliance pre-flight. Notable exclusions such as the UN Consolidated List, PEP/adverse media, and bulk screening are explicitly disclosed rather than hidden, so agents can work around them. The gaps are more like optional enhancements than dead ends.