AML transaction risk scoring: amount, corridor, sender screening. AMLR Art. 35+82.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | No | Transaction amount | |
| purpose | No | Transaction purpose/description | |
| currency | No | Currency code (default: EUR) | |
| sender_name | No | Sender name (screened against watchlists) | |
| origin_country | No | Sender country | |
| destination_country | No | Receiver country |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions inputs and legal reference but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what output format it returns (score, category, details), whether it calls external services, or any side effects. This leaves significant behavioral unknowns for a scoring tool.
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 extremely concise, two segments that front-load the core action and key factors. Every word earns its place, including the AMLR article reference that adds regulatory context. No filler or duplication of schema information.
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 a 6-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how to interpret the risk score, or when to prefer this over siblings. The legal citation lends authority but not practical operational context. An agent would lack key information for correct invocation and result use.
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% with each parameter described. The description adds conceptual grouping by mapping 'amount' to amount, 'corridor' to origin/destination_country, and 'sender screening' to sender_name, which provides value beyond the flat schema. This helps the agent understand which parameters are central to risk scoring.
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's purpose: 'AML transaction risk scoring' with specific inputs (amount, corridor, sender screening). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like country_risk or sanctions_screen, which focus on narrower aspects. The verb 'scoring' and resource 'transaction risk' are specific and unambiguous.
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 usage for AML transaction risk assessment by naming key factors and citing AMLR articles. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., sanctions_screen for list screening or country_risk for jurisdiction risk). It provides clear context but lacks exclusionary guidance.
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.