Full KYC in one call: Sanctions + PEP + Adverse Media + Country Risk. Returns overall risk level and AMLR decision.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Person or company name | |
| country | No | Country of origin/residence (optional) | |
| entity_type | No | person or company (default: person) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It discloses the scope of checks and the high-level outputs, which is helpful for a read-like aggregation tool, but it does not mention call boundaries, failure modes, or how the separate checks are combined. This is adequate but not rich.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each clause adds value: the list of component checks and the return type. No wasted words or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently indicates the return payload (risk level and AMLR decision). It does not explain the exact response structure or behavior on missing data, but for a bundled aggregation tool this level of completeness is adequate for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (name, country, entity_type), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level details beyond what the schema already states, so no bonus is warranted.
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 states the tool performs 'Full KYC in one call' and enumerates the included checks (Sanctions, PEP, Adverse Media, Country Risk), making its purpose unmistakable. It also specifies the output (overall risk level and AMLR decision), and the sibling tool names (e.g., sanctions_screen, pep_check) highlight that this is the comprehensive alternative.
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 phrase 'Full KYC in one call' implies use this when a comprehensive KYC screening is needed, and it distinguishes this from the more granular sibling tools. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over the individual check tools.
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.