Compound Web2+Web3 screen: wallet address + entity name in one call with convergence detection. Bridges blockchain wallets to traditional sanctions databases. Costs $0.003 USDC via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list | No | Entity list filter (default: all) | |
| name | No | Entity or person name for cross-reference (optional) | |
| chain | No | Chain hint: btc, eth, trx, auto (default: auto) | |
| address | Yes | Blockchain wallet address (any chain) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing the cost ($0.003 USDC via x402) and the compound screening nature. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or describe the return behavior, leaving some gaps.
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 concise sentences with no redundant information. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds important operational context (cost and backend connection). Every sentence 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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain more about what the tool returns and any side effects. It mentions convergence detection but does not clarify the response format or additional behaviors. It is adequate but incomplete for a 4-parameter tool.
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 only maps address and name from the tool's compound screen, and does not add meaning to list, chain, or the enum values. No extra parameter semantics beyond the schema.
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 clearly defines the compound resource (wallet address + entity name). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like compliance_wallet by emphasizing the combined Web2+Web3 screen and convergence detection.
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 clearly implies the usage context: when a combined wallet and entity name screening is needed, in one call. It bridges blockchain wallets to traditional sanctions databases, giving a clear contextual indication of when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or 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.
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.