Assess a company's compliance posture against applicable regulations.
Returns compliance level, percentage, gaps, and remediation priorities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sector | Yes | ||
| request_id | No | ||
| disclosures | No | ||
| payment_ref | No | ||
| company_name | Yes | ||
| jurisdiction | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions return values (compliance level, percentage, gaps, remediation priorities) but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or prerequisites like the payment_ref parameter implying a paid service. The description is too minimal for full transparency.
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 extremely concise at two sentences, with the first sentence clearly stating the purpose and the second listing the outputs. It is front-loaded and free of unnecessary words.
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 (6 parameters, including payment_ref and disclosures), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, usage context, and does not clarify how inputs like sector and jurisdiction affect the assessment. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged in the description.
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%, yet the description adds no information about any of the 6 parameters, including required ones like company_name, sector, and jurisdiction. The agent must infer their meaning from names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.
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: assess a company's compliance posture against regulations. It specifies the resource (company's compliance posture) and the verb (assess), making it distinct from sibling tools like scan_regulations, which focus on regulations themselves.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings, such as scan_regulations or describe_agent. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent without context for selection.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: scanning regulations, monitoring changes, assessing compliance, and self-description. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., assess_compliance, monitor_changes). No deviations.
With 4 tools, the set is well-scoped for the server's purpose of regulatory monitoring. It covers essential functions without being over or under.
The set covers core workflow (scan, monitor, assess) but lacks tools for detailed regulation retrieval, compliance history, or alert configuration, leaving noticeable gaps.