Screen any entity against comprehensive global watchlist records (OFAC, UN, EU, PEP, Interpol, crypto). Costs $0.005 USDC via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list | No | Watchlist to search. Default: all | |
| query | Yes | Entity name to screen (e.g. 'Vladimir Putin', 'Tornado Cash') | |
| threshold | No | Match confidence 0.0-1.0. Default: 0.75 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the cost ($0.005 USDC via x402) and lists the watchlist sources, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, what the response format is, or any rate limits or caveats.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action and scope, then adds the cost detail. There is no fluff or repetition.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the return values or behavior. It does not mention what the response looks like, match details, or any limitations. For a screening tool, this is a notable gap.
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% parameter coverage, with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Therefore, the baseline of 3 applies.
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 resource ('global watchlist records'), listing concrete lists (OFAC, UN, EU, PEP, Interpol, crypto). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like transaction_screen or travel_rule_screen, which focus on transactions or travel rules rather than general entity 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?
Usage is implied: it is for screening any entity against global watchlists. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or mention cases where other compliance tools would be more appropriate.
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.