Batch Sanctions Screening

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses per-call pricing ($0.50 per batch of up to 100), the x402/USDC-on-Base payment mechanism, the exact list coverage (UN only via EU/UK), and the per-name output shape. It omits rate limits, failure semantics for individual names in a batch, and auth beyond payment.

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 with no filler, and the scope constraints ('up to 100 names per call') are stated clearly. Leading with price rather than purpose is slightly off-optimal for scanability but is defensible for a paid tool.

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 annotations, no output schema, five parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does: it documents return fields per name, payment flow, list coverage and the intended use case. Gaps remain around batch-level error behavior and latency, which matter for a 100-name paid call.

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 adds real meaning on top by explaining that include_export_control pulls the US Consolidated Screening List and that the batch cap is 100 names, and by situating payment_signature in the x402 requirement flow. It does not clarify min_score tuning or matches_per_name behavior.

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?

Names a specific verb (screens) and resource (person/company names against OFAC SDN + Consolidated, EU, UK and optional US CSL), and enumerates the per-name result labels. Nothing about the tool's function is left to inference.

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 states the scenario: 'Use when you must screen a whole customer, supplier or payee list ... e.g. for onboarding backlogs or periodic re-screening.' That is a clear context trigger, though there are no sibling tools and no stated exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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