Screen any name against EU FSF (14k), OFAC SDN (69k), UN SC (3k), Interpol (13k) watchlists. AMLR Art. 35.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Name to screen e.g. 'Gazprom', 'Ivan Petrov' | |
| threshold | No | Match threshold 0.7-1.0 (default: 0.85) | |
| entity_type | No | person or company (default: any) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context about the watchlists and list sizes, but it does not disclose what happens on a match, how thresholds are applied, whether results return confidence scores, or any side effects/limitations. This is partial transparency, not full.
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?
Two concise sentences. The first sentence packs the core purpose and data sources, and the second adds regulatory context. No wasted words and the most important information is front-loaded.
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?
The tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to explain what a screening result looks like, how threshold and entity_type affect behavior, or what to do with matches. For a screening tool, this leaves an agent with significant ambiguity about the return contract.
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 has 100% parameter documentation, including descriptions and defaults. The description adds no extra parameter-level information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific verb ('Screen') and a resource ('any name') against a defined set of watchlists (EU FSF, OFAC SDN, UN SC, Interpol). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sanctions_detail by focusing on the screening action rather than detailed 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 provides clear context by naming the exact watchlists and legal basis (AMLR Art. 35), implying this tool is for sanctions/AML screening. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the scope is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
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.