AgentEconomy Compliance API

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it reveals fuzzy name matching algorithm (Jaro-Winkler), specific watchlists, cost per screening, and required header. Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, which aligns with the billing/logging side effects described. No contradictions.

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 very concise: three sentences with no filler. The main action and key details (watchlists, returns, cost, header) are front-loaded. Every sentence adds 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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description explains what is returned (risk level, score, recommendation, match details) and includes practical context (cost, header). It could be more complete by mentioning any limitations or behaviors for edge cases (e.g., multiple matches), but overall it sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and usage.

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 the schema already documents all 5 parameters. The description does not add detail on specific parameters beyond the schema. It mentions 'entity_name' and 'wallet_address' but adds no new semantic information. Baseline 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 screens an entity against AML watchlists, specifying OFAC SDN and UN sanctions. The verb 'screen' and resource 'entity against AML watchlists' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings (kyc_check, risk_report) by focusing on AML screening, though not explicitly contrasting.

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 usage context: for AML screening. It mentions cost ($0.05) and required header (X-PAYMENT), which are practical usage prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for other use cases.

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?

The description adds critical behavioral context beyond annotations: cost ($0.01 USDC per check), required X-PAYMENT header, and that results are based on real government sanctions data. These details explain the destructiveHint annotation and openWorldHint.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details and key side effects. Every sentence adds value; no redundant or superfluous text.

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 description covers the main purpose, return values, data source, and cost. However, it does not explain how optional parameters (country, entity_id, wallet_address) affect the check, which would be helpful for correct usage.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on parameters (entity_name, country, etc.), though it mentions the payment header which is not a parameter. No new insight into parameter usage is 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 the tool performs a KYC identity verification check against specific sanctions lists, and mentions the return values. It's a specific verb+resource and distinguishable from sibling tools (aml_screen, risk_report) by the focus on identity verification.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools aml_screen or risk_report. The description does not mention trade-offs, prerequisites, or alternative scenarios.

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?

Description discloses cost ($0.10 USDC) and the need for a signed X-PAYMENT header, which are behavioral traits beyond annotations. It aligns with destructiveHint=true. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 absence of an output schema, the description lists expected return values (risk level, score, etc.). It covers cost and authentication. However, it lacks details on error handling, interpretation of risk levels, or what happens on failure.

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 repeats entity_name's purpose but adds no significant meaning beyond the schema. It does not detail individual parameter behaviors or constraints.

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?

Description clearly states the tool generates a comprehensive regulatory risk assessment report combining KYC, AML, and multi-jurisdiction analysis. It lists specific outputs (risk level, risk score, sanctions results, etc.) and distinguishes itself from siblings (aml_screen, kyc_check) by being a combined report.

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?

Description implies usage context (comprehensive assessment) and mentions cost and payment header requirement. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. the individual AML or KYC tools, nor does it specify when not to use it.

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?

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description fully discloses that the tool costs $0.05 USDC, requires a signed X-PAYMENT header, and performs on-chain analysis. This adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 a single paragraph of moderate length, front-loading purpose and then details. It is efficient and well-structured, though slightly verbose in listing all analysis components.

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 (multiple checks, output fields, cost, authentication), the description covers all essential aspects for an AI agent to understand inputs, outputs, and constraints. No output schema is needed as the description specifies return fields.

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% with a good parameter description. The tool description adds overall context about the address's use but does not enhance meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 screens a blockchain wallet for compliance risk, detailing specific checks (OFAC, on-chain exposure, mixers) and outputs (risk level, score, recommendation). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on wallet addresses and not requiring entity names.

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 gives clear context on when to use (screening a wallet for compliance risk) and includes cost and authentication requirements. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparisons to siblings, but the specificity suffices for most usage decisions.

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