Negative news screening: fraud, money laundering, corruption, sanctions. AMLR Art. 55 ongoing monitoring.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Language: en or de (default: en) | |
| name | No | Person or company name to screen | |
| limit | No | Max articles 1-20 (default: 10) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states subject areas and the legal reference; it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the output format is, whether there is any risk of side effects, or if authentication or rate limits apply.
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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. However, it is so terse that it borders on under-specification, missing behavioral and interpretive details, so it earns 4 rather than 5.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values, operational behavior, and how 'ongoing monitoring' differs from a one-time check. It does none of this, leaving the agent with incomplete context for a screening 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% for the three parameters (lang, name, limit), so the schema already documents parameter semantics. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, but it is not required to, hence the baseline score of 3.
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 identifies the tool as screening for negative news (fraud, money laundering, corruption, sanctions) and references AMLR Art. 55 ongoing monitoring. It is specific about the domain and intent, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similar sibling tool 'aml_news', so there is slight ambiguity.
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 mentions 'ongoing monitoring' as regulatory context but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like aml_news, pep_check, or sanctions_screen. There are no explicit usage conditions, exclusions, or preferred scenarios.
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 targets a distinct AML function: sanctions screening, PEP checks, adverse media, country risk, transaction risk, UBO lookup, and regulatory news. The only potential overlap is between health_check and watchlist_update, but their purposes (server status vs data refresh) are clearly separated.
All names are lowercase with underscores and descriptive, but the pattern mixes noun phrases (adverse_media, transaction_risk) with verb phrases (pep_check, sanctions_screen). This is mostly consistent but not a strict verb_noun convention.
Twelve tools is well within the optimal range for a specialized AML screening service. Each tool adds a distinct capability without redundancy, making the set feel appropriately scoped.
The tool set covers the major AML workflow: sanctions screening, PEP, adverse media, country risk, transaction monitoring, UBO identification, and regulatory intelligence. It also includes operational tools (health check, watchlist update), leaving no critical gaps for the stated domain.