LEI lookup API / legal entity verification against GLEIF. Counterparty screening for onboarding and KYC workflows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lei | No | 20-character LEI. | |
| country | No | Optional ISO country filter. | |
| company_name | No | Legal name if LEI is unknown. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context that this is an external API lookup against GLEIF, implying reliance on an external data source, which is beyond the annotations. No contradiction with 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?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('LEI lookup API / legal entity verification against GLEIF') and followed by the use case. No unnecessary words 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 and schema cover the tool's purpose and parameters well, and an output schema exists. However, all parameters are optional but the description does not clarify that at least one identifier (LEI or company_name) is expected, and the relationship between parameters is implied only via schema hints. This leaves a small but important gap.
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%, with clear descriptions for each parameter ('20-character LEI', 'Optional ISO country filter', 'Legal name if LEI is unknown'). The description itself adds no extra parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 tool performs 'LEI lookup API / legal entity verification against GLEIF', identifying the specific resource and action. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like screen_ofac (sanctions) and validate_eu_vat (VAT), which serve different verification purposes.
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 gives a clear use case: 'Counterparty screening for onboarding and KYC workflows.' It does not explicitly exclude other tools or name alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to understand when this tool is appropriate.
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 compliance or verification domain: AI Act applicability, general company compliance, OFAC sanctions, EU VAT, and legal entity verification. The descriptions clearly delineate their purposes, so an agent can confidently select the appropriate tool.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (check_ai_act_applicability, company_compliance_preflight, screen_ofac, validate_eu_vat, verify_legal_entity). This predictable naming convention makes the tool surface easy to navigate.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for a compliance gateway. Each tool covers a major compliance/verification need, and the count is within the ideal 3-15 range, ensuring the set is neither sparse nor bloated.
The tool set covers the primary compliance checks (AI Act, OFAC sanctions, VAT, LEI, and company preflight). Minor gaps exist—such as other sanctions lists (e.g., UN, EU) or additional regulatory checks—but for a focused gateway, the coverage is solid and enough for typical workflows.