Get composite risk score for any of 179 countries — FATF grey/blacklist, CPI, Basel AML Index. Costs $0.001 USDC via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country_code | Yes | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code (e.g. MU, US, RU, IR) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries disclosure duties. It reveals the cost ($0.001 USDC via x402) and the underlying data sources, but does not mention output format, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only beyond the word 'Get'.
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 verb and resource, with the cost as a necessary caveat. Every word earns its place.
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?
A simple one-parameter tool, but with no output schema, the description should specify what type/range the risk score takes to make results actionable. It also doesn't clarify behavior for unsupported country codes, leaving moderate ambiguity.
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 schema already fully documents country_code with format and examples at 100% coverage. The description adds the context of 179 countries but no additional parameter-specific syntax or constraints, so it stays at baseline.
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?
Clearly states it retrieves a composite risk score for 179 countries, naming specific data sources (FATF, CPI, Basel AML Index). This distinguishes it from sibling compliance tools like watchlist or transaction screen.
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?
Implied usage for country-level compliance risk assessment, but no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios. Sibling tools with overlapping compliance functions are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer when this is the right choice.
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 clear distinct purposes, but several compliance screening tools (compliance_wallet, compliance_wallet_entity, compliance_watchlist, due_diligence) overlap partially and could confuse an agent. Country_brief and country_snapshot also have similar scope.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools use a compliance_ or country_ prefix, others use verb_noun (govdata_search, transaction_screen), and some are bare nouns (weather, forex_rates). No single convention is followed.
22 tools is on the heavier side but justified by the broad scope (global sanctions screening, travel rule, monitoring, and Mauritius economic data). The tools cover distinct functional areas, though a few could be consolidated.
Core compliance workflows are covered: screening, risk scoring, monitoring, travel rule, and due diligence. However, the monitoring lifecycle is incomplete (no unsubscribe or list subscriptions), and economic data is only provided for Mauritius, leaving gaps for global country intelligence.