screen_sanctionsScreen a company or person name against the OFAC SDN, OFAC Consolidated and UN Security Council lists. Returns any matches with a name-match confidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name to screen. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool screens against specific lists and returns matches with a name-match confidence, providing useful behavioral context about data sources and output. It does not mention side effects, authentication, or false-positive caveats, but the core behavior is well disclosed.
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 sentences, begins with the verb 'Screen', and immediately establishes what the tool does and what it returns. There is no redundant or extraneous information, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it explains the purpose, the exact lists queried, and the return value (matches with confidence). It does not delve into fuzzy matching or edge cases, but these are not essential for initial selection and 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?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the single 'name' parameter, so the description does not need to add much. The description repeats the parameter name amd purpose but does not introduce any additional semantic detail beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.
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 uses a specific verb 'Screen' and explicitly names the resources (company/person name) and the three sanctions lists (OFAC SDN, OFAC Consolidated, UN Security Council). This clearly differentiates the tool from sibling tools like get_company and search_companies, which handle company data but not sanctions screening.
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 implies the tool is for sanctions screening but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. The siblings are about company information, so the context is somewhat clear, but there is no explicit guidance or mention of exclusions.
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 has a distinct purpose: search_companies finds companies, get_company fetches full records, get_company_procurement retrieves contract history, and screen_sanctions checks sanctions lists. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_company, get_company_procurement, screen_sanctions, search_companies. The naming is uniform and predictable.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of company data lookup and compliance screening. Each tool covers a distinct, necessary function without redundancy or bloat.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of company research: search, retrieve full record, retrieve procurement history, and screen against sanctions. Since this is a read-only data service, there are no obvious gaps unless additional compliance features (e.g., list screening) are expected, but the current coverage is sufficient for typical use cases.