compliance_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the $0.02 USDC cost, hard-block behavior on OFAC hits, the need to pass target.agent_id to enable structuring detection, and that the FATF Travel-Rule threshold is informational. These details materially inform whether and how to call the 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 dense but well-structured: it front-loads the tool's purpose, then lists return fields, key checks, important behavioral conditions, and cost. Every sentence contributes useful information, though the length is near the upper bound of ideal.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the return object, key behavioral semantics, triggering conditions, and cost. It does not enumerate sibling alternatives or explain every diligence/obligation value, but it provides enough for an agent to select and 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?

Context signals report 0% top-level schema description coverage. The description compensates for target.agent_id by explaining it enables structuring detection, but it does not add meaning for payment_context beyond the nested schema descriptions for asset and amount. Compensation is only partial.

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?

States an exact verb, resource, and output: 'Pre-pay COMPLIANCE screen... Returns compliance_decision (pass/flag/block), diligence_tier, obligations, and checks'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling assessment tools by focusing on compliance screening for regulated-money x402 flows.

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?

Clear usage context is provided: 'Pre-pay', 'regulated-money x402 flows', and 'Screening support for compliance workflows' indicate when to invoke. It does not explicitly route away from siblings like assess_counterparty or firewall, but the intended pre-pay compliance scenario is specific enough.

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