Query Hong Kong SFC regulatory knowledge. Covers licensing (Type 1-13), compliance, exams, CPD/CPT, AML/CFT, virtual assets (VATP/ASPIRe), and more. Supports English and Chinese.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| language | No | Response language | auto |
| question | Yes | Your regulatory question in English or Chinese | |
| license_type | No | Optional: SFC license type filter, e.g. 'Type 1', 'Type 9' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as read-only, so no safety disclosure is needed. The description adds behavioral context by confirming English and Chinese support and the breadth of the knowledge base, though it omits details like whether answers come from a fixed corpus.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and scope. Every phrase contributes information.
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 is adequate for a read-only knowledge query tool with a required question parameter and optional filters. It lists relevant domains, but could benefit from a hint about response format or when to use specialized siblings.
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 descriptions cover all three parameters (question, language, license_type), so the description doesn't need to explain them. It adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond listing related topics in the description.
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 'Query Hong Kong SFC regulatory knowledge,' a specific verb and resource. It enumerates topic areas like licensing and AML/CFT, but does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools such as compliance_check or search_enforcement.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings. The topic list implies its use for general regulatory questions, but exclusions or alternatives are not stated.
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 have clearly distinct purposes: querying regulations, searching enforcement, checking compliance health, assessing risk, getting SOPs, etc. However, checklist_lookup and query_regulation overlap somewhat in general regulatory questions, and compliance_check vs compliance_score could be confused, though descriptions help.
Tool names are all lowercase with underscores, but the pattern is inconsistent: some start with verbs (get_license_guide, query_regulation, search_enforcement), while others are noun-led (compliance_check, checklist_lookup, risk_assessment). This mixed convention reduces predictability.
10 tools is well-scoped for an SFC compliance assistant, covering a range of tasks from regulation lookup to risk assessment and enforcement search without being excessive. Each tool earns its place.
The tool surface covers the core domain lifecycle: regulatory knowledge, compliance checking, risk assessment, enforcement research, SOP guidance, license info, and updates. Minor gaps like direct form submission or detailed compliance item management exist, but the set is near complete for an advisory/analysis tool.