Screen a person or company against the official EU, US (OFAC SDN) and UK (OFSI) sanctions lists. Fuzzy name matching with an auditable reason per hit — review every hit yourself; a clean result is not legal clearance and covers no PEP data. 15 credits, requires an API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| type | No | ||
| minScore | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden—and it succeeds. It discloses fuzzy matching, auditable reasons per hit, the need for manual review, the non-legal nature of results, the absence of PEP data, the 15-credit cost, and the API key requirement. This is excellent disclosure for an agent.
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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds meaningful information. There is no repetition or filler.
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?
There is no output schema, but the description conveys the essential behavior, key inputs, caveats, and cost. It mentions 'auditable reason per hit' which hints at the return shape, though it does not fully specify the response format. A little more detail about what a clean vs. hit result looks like would round it out, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does partially: 'person or company' maps to the 'type' parameter, and 'fuzzy name matching' hints at the purpose of 'minScore'. However, it does not explain the minScore range or how the auditable reason relates to the output, leaving the agent to rely on schema 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?
The description opens with a specific verb ('Screen') and a concrete resource ('person or company against official EU, US (OFAC SDN) and UK (OFSI) sanctions lists'). It clearly differentiates from sibling validation tools by naming the exact domain and data sources.
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 (sanctions screening) and explicitly states exclusions: 'a clean result is not legal clearance and covers no PEP data.' It does not name alternative sibling tools, but the siblings are all validation tools, so the context is sufficient to distinguish.
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 are clearly distinct, but validate_vatid and validate_vatid_format could be confused at a glance, and verify_company overlaps with validate_iban and validate_vatid in scope. However, detailed descriptions and explicit mentions of differences help an agent choose correctly.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores: screen_sanctions, validate_email, validate_iban, validate_vatid, validate_vatid_format, verify_company. The verb varies but the structure is uniform.
Six tools is a well-scoped number for a validation API covering sanctions, email, IBAN, VAT, and a combined company verification. Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count feels neither sparse nor bloated.
The set covers core validation areas (sanctions, email, IBAN, VAT, company verification) but intentionally excludes PEP screening and commercial-register checks, as noted in the descriptions. These minor gaps do not prevent core workflows, though they limit full KYC coverage.