Complete country intelligence brief: compliance risk assessment + live economic data. For Mauritius (MU) includes all 7 oracle feeds (forex, macro, monetary, stock market, weather, fuel). Replaces 8 API calls. Costs $0.010 USDC via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country_code | Yes | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code (e.g. MU, SG, VG) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals the tool is paid ('Costs $0.010 USDC via x402'), aggregates data, and has country-specific coverage (Mauritius has all 7 feeds). However, it does not describe the output format, potential errors, or side effects (if any), leaving room for ambiguity.
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 three sentences, tightly packed with relevant details: tool purpose, content composition, country-specific coverage, replacement of 8 calls, and cost. No redundant or filler words, and key information is front-loaded in the first sentence.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it produces (compliance risk + economic data), coverage specifics, and cost. It lacks details on output format or edge cases (e.g., unsupported countries), but given the simplicity, it is fairly complete.
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 fully describes the single parameter 'country_code' with an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 format, so baseline is 3. The description adds marginal context by implying that country coverage varies (e.g., 'For Mauritius (MU) includes all 7 oracle feeds'), but does not elaborate on parameter behavior 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 clearly states the tool's function as a 'Complete country intelligence brief' combining compliance risk assessment and live economic data. It also specifies content for Mauritius (all 7 oracle feeds) and differentiates itself from sibling tools by aggregating multiple data sources, as indicated by 'Replaces 8 API calls'.
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 when to use the tool: when a consolidated country brief is needed instead of making multiple individual API calls (e.g., forex, macro, weather). It also mentions cost and coverage for Mauritius, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a 5.
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.