Paid ($0.0029–$0.50). Multi-gate compliance bundle: run any combination of IBAN validation, sanctions screening, and EVM address validation in a single call. Returns all gate results + XDR-1 signed receipt. Tier auto-detected from field count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| iban | No | IBAN to validate | |
| tier | No | Pricing tier (auto-detected if omitted) | |
| sanctions | No | Sanctions screening: { addresses: string[], names: string[] } | |
| onchain_address | No | EVM address to validate |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral details: pricing range ($0.0029–$0.50), that it returns all gate results plus an XDR-1 signed receipt, and that tier is auto-detected from field count. Minor gaps remain around error behavior, what happens with zero fields, and payment/auth mechanics.
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 three short, information-dense sentences with no filler. It is mostly front-loaded, though leading with price rather than purpose is a slight structural quibble; the core capability is still stated immediately after.
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?
Given a tool with four optional parameters, one nested object, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what gates can be run, what is returned, and how pricing tier is determined. It could be more complete by addressing empty-input behavior, but it is sufficient for correct 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that any combination of the gates can be run and that tier is auto-detected from field count, which deepens understanding of how the optional parameters interact and how pricing is determined.
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 names a specific verb+resource ('Multi-gate compliance bundle: run any combination of IBAN validation, sanctions screening, and EVM address validation in a single call'), which is precise. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like iban_check, sanctions_check, and onchain_address_check by emphasizing the bundled, single-call nature of the operation.
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?
It clearly signals the usage context: use this when you want to combine multiple compliance gates in one call rather than calling individual check tools separately. However, it doesn't explicitly name the single-gate alternatives or state when not to use this bundle (e.g., for a single check), leaving some inference to the agent.
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.