Ultimate Beneficial Owner (UBO) identification via GLEIF LEI ownership register. AMLR Art. 42.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lei | No | LEI code (alternative to company name) | |
| company | No | Company name e.g. 'Volkswagen AG' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the data source (GLEIF LEI ownership register) but does not describe what the tool returns, how it handles missing inputs, or whether it performs restrictive access. This is minimal transparency beyond the basic function.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail, making it highly concise and easy to parse.
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 no output schema and no annotations, so the description should compensate by explaining return values and usage context. It does not describe the output format, error behavior, or what the agent should expect after a successful call. Given the availability of sibling tools in a broader KYC/AML context, this brevity leaves significant 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (lei and company) having clear descriptions. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies per the guidelines.
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 function: 'Ultimate Beneficial Owner (UBO) identification via GLEIF LEI ownership register.' It uses a specific verb ('identification') and resource ('GLEIF LEI ownership register'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like pep_check and sanctions_screen by focusing on UBO rather than PEP or sanction status. The AMLR Art. 42 reference adds regulatory context.
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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or alternative tools. The AMLR Art. 42 reference implies a regulatory use case, but there is no clear 'use this for X, use that for Y' instruction.
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.