sanctions_screen

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

Without annotations, the description discloses cost ($0.50 USDC), settlement network (Base mainnet), and deterministic passthrough with source attribution. Could mention failure modes or data handling, but sufficient for expected behavior.

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 focused sentences with a bullet list of use cases and cost note. No wasted words, front-loaded with key 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?

No output schema, but description details return values (score, provenance, IDs, URLs) and cost/deterministic nature. Covers all aspects for a screening tool.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds value by noting 'dob improves match accuracy' and 'country code is ISO-3166 alpha-2', providing context beyond schema.

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 it screens against 100+ global sanctions lists, names specific lists (OFAC, UN, EU, UK), and lists return fields (match score, provenance, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings by providing a specific compliance use case.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use: 'Use this when the user asks about: compliance checks, KYC, screening counterparties, OFAC/sanctions, due diligence.' Also clarifies no LLM involvement, ensuring reliability.

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