vera_sanctions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals return values (risk_score range, audit hash) and cost ($0.05 USDC via x402), but omits details like authentication requirements, side effects, or error handling. Provides some transparency but not comprehensive.

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 a single, dense sentence that conveys all key information: function, target lists, output, and cost. No unnecessary words or repetition; highly efficient.

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 output schema, the description explains return values (risk_score and audit hash) and cost, which is helpful. However, it lacks details on error scenarios, the meaning of risk_score, or whether the tool modifies data. For a simple screening tool, it is adequate but has notable gaps.

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 add meaning to parameters. It implies 'name' and 'country' via context of sanctions screening and mentions the 'type' enum (person/company), but does not specify formats, constraints, or examples for any parameter. Insufficient compensation for lack of schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states 'Sanctions screening' and lists specific sanctions lists (OFAC SDN, SARLAFT CO, etc.), clearly defining the tool's scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vera_rates or vera_entity, which serve different purposes.

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 implies the tool is for sanctions screening but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. Usage context is clear but lacks exclusions or comparison with siblings.

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