SONAR KYB

kyb_findings

Read-only

Run a Know Your Business check on a company to return registry, sanctions, PEP, offshore leak, and adverse media findings with source links for due diligence.

Instructions

Run a fast KYB (Know Your Business) check on a company.

    Returns structured findings with source links: registry record
    (legal name, number, status, address, officers), sanctions and PEP
    matches, ICIJ Offshore Leaks hits, regulatory registers (e.g. FCA
    for UK firms) and adverse media. Synchronous, 30-90s, no AI-written
    summary. EUR 0.40 per call after the 3 free trial API calls.

    Args:
        company_name: Legal name of the company (e.g. "Tesco PLC")
        website: Company website URL, strongly recommended for disambiguation

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`website`	No
`company_name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, it discloses latency (30-90s synchronous), pricing (EUR 0.40/call after 3 free trial calls), that no AI-written summary is produced, and the exact finding categories returned with source links. That cost and timing profile is precisely the operational context an agent needs before invoking a paid external call.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the action, then the returned findings, then operational facts (latency, price), then Args. Each block adds distinct information with no filler or repetition of the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a paid external lookup with an output schema already covering return shape, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: what is checked, expected duration, cost model, trial allowance, and both parameter meanings. Nothing material is left ambiguous.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and it does: it labels company_name as the legal name with a concrete example ("Tesco PLC") and explains website's purpose as disambiguation plus that it is strongly recommended. It stops short of specifying accepted URL formats or what happens if a wrong-name match occurs, which keeps it from a 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Run a fast KYB check on a company") and enumerates exactly what the check produces (registry record, sanctions/PEP, ICIJ, regulatory registers, adverse media). The word "Synchronous" plus the per-call pricing signals that this is the direct-run tool rather than the async sibling kyb_run_submit, so an agent can separate them without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It implies usage (a company lookup with a legal name and an optional disambiguating website, "strongly recommended") but never says when to pick this over kyb_run_submit or check_report_status, and there are no exclusions. The trial/quota note hints at cost-sensitive routing but leaves the sibling choice to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

This server cannot be deployed