agentdata-nl

screen_eu_sanctions

Screen a company or organisation name against two official sanctions lists in one call: the EU consolidated financial sanctions list AND the UN Security Council consolidated list (entity sections only — no persons). Normalised name matching across all registered aliases; returns per match the source list (EU/UN), matched names, programmes, designation date and source link, plus each list's generation date. not_listed is no clearance; other jurisdictions (e.g. OFAC) are not covered.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Company/organisation name to screen (entities only, no persons)

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: normalised name matching across aliases, returns per match (source list, matched names, programmes, designation date, source link, each list's generation date), and limitations (entities only, not a clearance). No contradictions with annotations (none provided).

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Single concise paragraph front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value: describes the lists, matching method, return details, and limitations. No redundancy.

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?

Tool has one parameter and no output schema, so description must fully explain its purpose, processing, and outputs. It does so thoroughly, covering input (company name, entities only), process (normalised matching across both lists), and output details (source, matched names, etc.), plus limitations. Complete for its complexity.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The only parameter 'name' is described in schema as 'Company/organisation name to screen (entities only, no persons)'. The tool description reinforces this with context about the screening process and the two lists. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3; the description adds extra nuance, earning a 4.

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 it screens a company/organisation name against two specific sanctions lists (EU and UN). It distinguishes from siblings like screen_eu_supplier by specifying scope (entities only, no persons) and coverage (two specific lists). This is a specific verb+resource combination.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states 'not_listed is no clearance' and 'other jurisdictions (e.g. OFAC) are not covered', providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. Also contrasts with sibling tools that may cover other jurisdictions.

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

All agentdata-nl 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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct action and domain: country-specific company checks (check_ch_company, check_fr_company, etc.), insolvency checks, crypto signals, x402 network tools, etc. Descriptions are detailed and make boundaries clear, with no two tools appearing to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow very consistent patterns: 'check_<country>_<entity>' for registers, 'crypto_*' for crypto intelligence, 'x402_*' for x402 network functions, 'screen_*' for screening, and a few free-form names like 'verify_eu_vat' and 'lookup_lei' that still fit the verb_noun style. No mixing of conventions.

Tool Count4/5

39 tools is high but justified by the broad scope: the server aggregates many country-specific checks, insolvency registers, crypto tools, x402 monitoring, and auxiliary functions (like phone number buying, LEI lookup). Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count is not excessive given the coverage. A slight reduction could be possible by merging some country checks, but overall it's reasonable.

Completeness4/5

The server covers major European company registers (CH, UK, FR, NL, NO, PL, CZ, FI), insolvency checks (NL, FR), sanctions screening, VAT validation, crypto market intelligence, and x402 network tools. It acknowledges gaps (e.g., no German check) and provides fallback tools like 'screen_eu_supplier' and 'file_agent_want'. Minor missing pieces (e.g., Italian company check) keep it from a perfect 5.

Resources

Need Help?