Velvoite — EU Financial Regulatory Compliance

get_enforcement_intelligence

Read-only

Get top enforced canonical obligations. Returns obligations ranked by
enforcement activity for risk prioritization.

This is a focused view of canonical obligations filtered to only those
with at least one enforcement action. Use this to identify which
obligations regulators are actively enforcing.

Args:
    regulation: Filter by regulation code (e.g. 'dora', 'mica', 'aml').
    actor_role: Comma-separated actor roles (e.g. 'credit_institution,significant_institution').
    entity_type: Filter by entity type code (e.g. 'credit_institution').
    compliance_difficulty: Filter by difficulty: 'low', 'medium', 'high', 'critical'.
    min_enforcement_count: Minimum enforcement actions (default 1 — only enforced obligations).
    sort: Sort order (default 'enforcement_count_desc').
    page: Page number (default 1).
    per_page: Results per page (default 20, max 100).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`page`	No
`sort`	No	enforcement_count_desc
`per_page`	No
`actor_role`	No
`regulation`	No
`entity_type`	No
`compliance_difficulty`	No
`min_enforcement_count`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With readOnlyHint=true annotation, the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the filtering behavior (only obligations with at least one enforcement action via min_enforcement_count default of 1) and ranking by enforcement activity. It does not describe return format or performance, but the output schema covers return values.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a summary, an explanatory paragraph, and an args list. However, there is slight redundancy: 'Get top enforced canonical obligations' and 'This is a focused view of canonical obligations filtered to only those with at least one enforcement action' convey similar information. Overall, it is efficient and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the 8-parameter complexity, the presence of an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is complete. It documents all parameters with examples, notes the default filtering behavior, and explains the tool's purpose, leaving no critical gaps for the agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully document parameters. It does so comprehensively, listing all 8 parameters with types, examples, and defaults (e.g., 'regulation: Filter by regulation code (e.g. 'dora', 'mica', 'aml')'). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get top enforced canonical obligations' with a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is 'a focused view of canonical obligations filtered to only those with at least one enforcement action,' which separates it from broader obligation-listing tools like get_canonical_obligations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear usage context: 'Use this to identify which obligations regulators are actively enforcing.' It implies differentiation from broader obligation views but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. This is clear context without explicit exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Velvoite — EU Financial Regulatory Compliance tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource (obligations, documents, enforcement, Finnish statutes, CJEU cases) with clear parameter differences. Minor overlap exists between get_obligations and get_canonical_obligations, but descriptions explicitly differentiate them.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools consistently use verb_noun patterns: get_ for retrievals, search_ for queries, list_documents, and audit_taxonomy. No mixed casing or inconsistent verb styles are present.

Tool Count2/5

At 26 tools, the surface exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many'. While the domain is broad, the large number of specialized search/get tools could be consolidated without losing functionality.

Completeness4/5

The API covers the full regulatory compliance workflow: company profile, obligations, deadlines, documents, enforcement, and multiple legal sources (EU, Finnish, CJEU). Some Finnish/KHO tools return URLs requiring web fetch rather than direct data, which is a minor but by-design gap.

Resources

Need Help?