Check monitoring subscription status. Re-screens the subscribed wallet/entity against the latest database and returns current alert state. Costs $0.003 USDC via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| subscription_id | Yes | Subscription ID (MON-XXXXXX-XXXXXXXX) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the re-screening behavior, the return of current alert state, and the cost ($0.003 USDC via x402). It does not explicitly state whether it modifies anything, but the verb 'check' implies a read-only operation, and the cost note is a useful behavioral trait.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes essential behavioral and cost information. Every sentence contributes value, with no fluff or redundancy.
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 simple with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains what it does, the input, the output ('current alert state'), and the cost. It could mention return value details or error behavior, but given the low complexity, it is sufficiently 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 schema has 100% parameter coverage with a clear description for subscription_id, so the description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies, as the description does not compensate with additional details about the parameter.
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 purpose: 'Check monitoring subscription status.' It goes further to explain the mechanism ('Re-screens the subscribed wallet/entity against the latest database') and the output ('returns current alert state'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like monitor_subscribe and compliance checks.
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 provides clear context: it is for checking an existing monitoring subscription and returning the current alert state. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is sufficient to infer appropriate usage.
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.