AMLR / AMLA / AMLD6 regulatory news. Topics: general, amla, amlr, sanctions, crypto_aml, fatf, de_geldwaesche, pep, kyc, str.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Language: en or de (default: en) | |
| limit | No | Max articles 1-20 (default: 10) | |
| topic | No | Topic: general, amla, amlr, sanctions, crypto_aml, fatf, de_geldwaesche, pep, kyc, str |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, possible rate limits, pagination, or output format. The description only restates the tool's purpose without adding behavioral context.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the key information (AMLR/AMLA/AMLD6 regulatory news) and then efficiently lists all topic keywords. There is no fluff or redundant wording.
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?
For a simple news tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential topic range but omits information about response structure or any additional behavior. It is adequate for basic understanding but has clear gaps.
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?
The input schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description only repeats the allowed topic values, which are already in the schema, so it adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides.
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 providing AMLR/AMLA/AMLD6 regulatory news and enumerates specific topics. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on screening or lookups, such as sanctions_screen or ubo_lookup.
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 implies this tool is for retrieving regulatory news and lists topics, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is implied by the tool name and description but not made explicit.
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.