Compound entity screening package: watchlist screening + jurisdiction risk for detected nationalities + Mauritius FSC check + forex context + composite risk score. Replaces 5 separate API calls. Costs $0.010 USDC via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Entity name for due diligence (e.g. 'Acme Corp', 'John Smith') | |
| include_forex | No | Include forex rates for detected jurisdictions (default: true) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by naming the included checks, noting the composite risk score, and revealing the cost of $0.010 USDC via x402. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how the composite score is computed, or any side effects beyond cost, leaving gaps for an agent to infer.
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 compact and information-dense: two sentences that list components, state replacement value, and disclose cost. Every phrase earns its place, and the structure front-loads the core purpose before adding contextual details.
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?
The tool is a compound package with medium complexity. The description explains what it includes and its cost, but lacks information about the output structure or how the composite risk score is presented. Since there is no output schema, the description should provide some expectation of return values; it does not. Still, it is more complete than minimal and would allow selection, though not full invocation confidence.
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 covers 100% of parameters, so the description is not required to elaborate. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage. The baseline of 3 applies as the schema already documents both 'query' and 'include_forex' clearly.
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 states it is a 'Compound entity screening package' and enumerates its components (watchlist, jurisdiction risk, Mauritius FSC, forex, composite risk score). It differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly noting it 'Replaces 5 separate API calls', making its scope and aggregation clear. However, it lacks a direct imperative verb like 'screen', relying on the noun phrase.
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 when to use this tool: when a comprehensive due diligence screening is needed, as opposed to calling individual sibling tools. It states it replaces 5 separate API calls, which provides usage context. It doesn't offer explicit exclusions or alternatives by name, but the component list maps to sibling tools, giving clear situational guidance.
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.