Bizfile MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It fully discloses behavioral traits: screens against 386 risk sources (UN, EU, OFAC, etc.), uses OpenSanctions API updated daily, and warns of criminal liability for operators. This goes beyond basic safety to include legal consequences.

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 detailed and well-structured, front-loading the purpose and usage. However, it is somewhat dense and could be slightly more concise. Every sentence serves a purpose, but the length reduces quick scanning.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (sanctions screening, multiple sources, legal implications), the description covers all necessary context: mandates, update frequency, data sources, consequences of misuse, and output format (PROCEED/ENHANCED_DUE_DILIGENCE/BLOCK). With an output schema existing, this is fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for the officers parameter (explicitly linking it to validate_counterparty), but does not significantly elaborate on other parameters beyond the schema. Minimal added value for parameter understanding.

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 explicitly states the tool checks counterparty sanctions status, using specific verbs like 'Checks' and 'Screen'. It distinguishes from siblings (validate_counterparty, validate_counterparty_lite) by describing its unique role as a sanctions screening step after validation.

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?

Clear guidance on when to call: 'BEFORE invoking any agentic payment rail -- immediately after validate_counterparty'. It specifies passing the directors_and_officers array and lists concrete use cases (e-invoicing mandates by country), leaving no ambiguity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It details the validation method (UK Companies House + AI risk scoring), the possible return verdicts (PROCEED, ENHANCED_DUE_DILIGENCE, BLOCK) and risk score range (0-100), and explains critical consequences of not using the tool (no chargeback, e-invoice rejection). This provides thorough insight into the tool's behavior and impact.

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 relatively long but well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, then provides usage context, then details implementation and consequences, and ends with a recommendation. Each sentence serves a purpose, though some trimming could be done without losing essential information.

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 has an output schema, reducing the need to explain return values, but the description still covers the verdict types, risk score, and how to use the output (pass to screen_counterparty). It also provides necessary context about the data source and the criticality of the tool, making it fully informative for an agent.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It notes that company_name can be full or partial and that company_number is optional for exact match, but these are already clear from the schema's descriptions. No additional semantic details are provided.

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 that it validates counterparty legitimacy and specifies the exact scenarios (before agentic payment rails, before onboarding into e-invoicing workflows). However, it does not explicitly differentiate between this tool and its sibling 'validate_counterparty_lite', leaving some ambiguity about when to use which.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: before invoking any agentic payment rail or onboarding a supplier into specific e-invoicing workflows. It also implicitly advises against use after those actions, and directs to pass results to screen_counterparty, giving clear context for proper tool invocation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Despite no annotations, the description comprehensively discloses behavior: returns registry status in under 1 second, no AI, no officers, no risk score. It also warns about consequences of dissolved entities creating irrecoverable exposure. Output schema exists, so return format detail is not required.

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 slightly verbose but each sentence adds unique value, covering purpose, timing, use case, and behavior. It could be tightened slightly without losing clarity, but overall well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description fully covers the workflow, prerequisites, consequences, and next steps. It leaves no major gaps for an agent to understand when and how to use it.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it only reiterates that company_number is optional for exact match.

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 validates counterparty registry status and positions it as a fast pre-screening step before full validation. It distinguishes from the sibling validate_counterparty by specifying this is a lightweight check for filtering dissolved/unregistered entities.

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?

Explicitly tells when to call (before pre-screening a batch, when agent has list and workflow not begun), and what to do after (call validate_counterparty on non-ACTIVE results). It also provides context for high-volume batches and mentions specific payment rails.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.