run_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 burden. It mentions the tool runs checks and returns status, flags, and actions, but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify permissions needed, whether it's read-only or mutative, rate limits, or error handling. The mention of 'Price: $1.00' hints at a cost, but this isn't elaborated (e.g., per call, billing implications).

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 well-structured and appropriately sized: it starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by Args and Returns sections that are easy to parse. The 'Price' note is concise but could be integrated better. There's minimal fluff, though the separation into sections aids readability without verbosity.

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?

Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter meanings, and the output schema handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those. However, for a tool with potential side effects (e.g., cost, compliance implications), more behavioral context would improve completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context: 'entity_id' is explained as an identifier for entities like wallet addresses, and 'check_type' lists specific options (aml, kyc, sanctions, pep) with a default noted. This goes beyond the bare schema, providing practical usage semantics, though it doesn't detail format constraints or examples.

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 purpose: 'Run AML/KYC compliance checks.' It specifies the action ('Run') and resource ('compliance checks'), with additional context about the types (AML, KYC, sanctions, PEP). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'detect_fraud' or 'get_wallet_risk_score', which might have overlapping domains in financial risk assessment.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'detect_fraud' or 'get_credit_risk_score'. Usage is implied through the description of what it does, but no explicit when/when-not instructions are given.

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