PEP Screening (Politically Exposed Persons)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose non-obvious behavior: data provenance (open CC0 Wikidata), the payment model ('Paid per call via x402 (USDC on Base)'), and the optional country/birth_year narrowing. It does not cover failure modes (no match), rate limits, or latency, which keeps it out of the top score.

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads the verb and scope, then the return payload, then the use case, then cost. The long parenthetical office list ('head of state, minister, MP, judge, ambassador...') is slightly bloated but it conveys the recall breadth of the data.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned candidate structure and scoring. It also surfaces the x402 payment flow and data source. Missing only edge-case behavior (empty result handling, error/payment failure path), which is minor for a 5-parameter read tool.

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 all five parameters are already documented, including limit, country format, birth_year disambiguation and the optional payment_signature that returns payment requirements. The description only restates that country and birth_year are optional filters, adding no syntax or default detail beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Screen a person's name for PEP status worldwide') followed by an enumeration of the returned candidate fields (offices held, dates, current/former, country, party, birth year, match score), so the agent knows exactly what data comes back. There are no siblings to confuse it with, and the scope (worldwide, Wikidata-sourced) is stated.

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?

Explicit trigger scenario: 'Use when onboarding a customer, director or counterparty and you must check whether the person is a politically exposed person (PEP) before KYC/AML sign-off.' That tells the agent when to reach for it. There are no sibling tools and no stated when-not-to-use condition (e.g. company screening), so it falls short of a full 5.

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