Check watchlist freshness and reload from OpenSanctions. Use force_reload=true to refresh cache.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| force_reload | No | Force reload all watchlists from OpenSanctions (default: false) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions reloading from OpenSanctions and refreshing the cache, which gives some insight into side effects. However, it fails to clarify the default behavior (whether checking freshness triggers a reload if stale) or any potential network dependencies or permissions. This is a moderate level of transparency.
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 sentences that front-load the core function and then provide parameter-specific guidance. Every word earns its place without unnecessary elaboration.
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 is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), but the description is ambiguous about whether both 'check' and 'reload' happen in one call or are mutually exclusive modes. It does not explain what happens when force_reload is false (e.g., whether stale data is auto-reloaded) or what the return value indicates. This ambiguity is significant for an agent needing to invoke the tool 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 description provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by framing force_reload as the switch between checking freshness and reloading, and uses the phrase 'refresh cache' to clarify its role. This goes slightly beyond the schema's wording.
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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Check watchlist freshness and reload from OpenSanctions.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sanctions_screen or health_check, which focus on screening or system health rather than watchlist cache management.
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 some usage guidance by explaining when to use force_reload=true. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. The context for when a freshness check is needed is implied but not fully articulated.
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.