country_risk
Country risk assessment: FATF Blacklist, Greylist, EU High-Risk. AMLR Art. 16+18.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | No | Country name or ISO code e.g. 'Iran', 'Nigeria', 'RU' |
aml
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior, yet it only names data sources (FATF, EU, AMLR). It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what output format to expect, or any side effects. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, stating the core scope in one sentence. However, the heavy use of abbreviations like 'AMLR Art. 16+18' may obscure meaning for agents without deep AML domain knowledge, preventing a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain return values, but it does not. It also omits details like whether the result is a risk score, a list membership, or a textual report. For a tool with no other structured documentation, this is a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully documents the 'country' parameter with examples (Iran, Nigeria, RU), and the tool description adds no additional parameter-level details. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as a country risk assessment based on FATF Blacklist, Greylist, EU High-Risk, and AMLR articles, which differentiates it from siblings like sanctions_screen or pep_check. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+resource sentence, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for country-level risk screening using specific regulatory frameworks, but it lacks any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not cases or sibling references are provided, so the usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
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.
Naming Consistency4/5
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.
Tool Count5/5
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.
Completeness5/5
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.