Know Your Agent — ERC-8004 registry lookup + sanctions screening + signed JWT attestation for any wallet address. Returns agent registration status, operator wallet, screening results, and coldStartSignals. FREE.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Wallet address to check (e.g. 0xd8dA6BF26964aF9D7eEd9e03E53415D37aA96045) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description discloses the main operations performed (lookup, screening, attestation) and mentions 'FREE,' but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it mention any prerequisites, rate limits, or potential side effects. The mention of a 'signed JWT attestation' adds some behavioral context about the output format, but deeper transparency is missing.
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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose (registry lookup + screening + attestation), and the second sentence lists the outputs. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail, making it highly efficient.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description lists the key outputs but leaves some gaps: it does not explain what 'coldStartSignals' means or how to interpret the signed JWT attestation. While the core purpose is covered, the lack of detail on these domain-specific terms could confuse an agent, making the description incomplete for a fully self-contained understanding.
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 already fully describes the single 'address' parameter with an example, achieving 100% coverage. The description only says 'for any wallet address,' which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 performs an ERC-8004 registry lookup, sanctions screening, and signed JWT attestation for a wallet address, with specific outputs (agent registration status, operator wallet, screening results, coldStartSignals) listed. This distinguishes it from sibling compliance tools by focusing on the ERC-8004 agent registry and the 'Know Your Agent' concept.
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 its use for checking agent registration and screening, but it does not explicitly compare it to alternatives like compliance_wallet or transaction_screen, nor state when to prefer this tool over others. The phrase 'for any wallet address' gives a general context but lacks exclusions or explicit when-to-use 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.