Skip to main content
Glama
vassiliylakhonin

Agenda Intelligence

by vassiliylakhonin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

cis_secondary_sanctions_exposure

Triage CIS-domiciled counterparty exposure to secondary sanctions under OFAC EO 14114, EU, and UK OFSI regimes. Returns decision-readiness score, exposure dimensions, and evidence gaps for human review.

Instructions

Triage secondary-sanctions exposure for a CIS-domiciled counterparty (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Moldova) for EU / UK / UAE / Singapore enhanced due diligence against OFAC EO 14114, the EU sanctions package, UK OFSI, and FATF / EAG typologies. Pass a structured exposure_request (counterparty, exposure_facets, jurisdiction_review_scope, dated_sources, risk_question, decision_stage) matching cis-secondary-sanctions-request.schema.json. Returns a triage recommendation, decision-readiness score, exposure dimensions, evidence gaps, and minimum sources before review. Local stdio runs on user-supplied evidence only (no live retrieval); a name match is not identity verification; human review is required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
exposure_requestYesStructured CIS secondary-sanctions exposure request. Call get_schema('cis_secondary_sanctions_request') for the full nested contract.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.5.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / exposure_request / description
      Previous value: -"Structured CIS secondary-sanctions exposure request matching cis-secondary-sanctions-request.schema.json."New value: +"Structured CIS secondary-sanctions exposure request. Call get_schema('cis_secondary_sanctions_request') for the full nested contract."
    • addedInput schema / properties / exposure_request / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "counterparty": {
+      "jurisdiction": "Kazakhstan",
+      "name": "Example Kazakhstan Trading LLP",
+      "ownership_layers": [
+        "Holding A (KZ)",
+        "Holding B (UAE)"
+      ],
+      "sector": "trading_house"
+    },
+    "dated_sources": [
+      {
+        "date": "2026-05-20",
+        "id": "s1",
+        "source_type": "ofac_sdn_extract",
+        "title": "OFAC SDN list excerpt"
+      }
+    ],
+    "decision_stage": "onboarding",
+    "exposure_facets": [
+      "ownership_or_control",
+      "ict_or_dual_use_goods",
+      "transit_or_re_export"
+    ],
+    "jurisdiction_review_scope": [
+      "ofac",
+      "eu",
+      "uk_ofsi"
+    ],
+    "risk_question": "Does the disclosed ownership chain create indirect exposure under OFAC EO 14114 or EU sanctions package?"
+  }
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / exposure_request / properties
      Added value: +{
+  "counterparty": {
+    "properties": {
+      "jurisdiction": {
+        "minLength": 1,
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "name": {
+        "minLength": 1,
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "notes": {
+        "minLength": 1,
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "ownership_layers": {
+        "type": "array"
+      },
+      "registered_identifiers": {
+        "type": "array"
+      },
+      "sector": {
+        "enum": [
+          "trading_house",
+          "logistics_forwarder",
+          "bank",
+          "fintech",
+          "broker_dealer",
+          "manufacturer",
+          "ict_or_electronics",
+          "metals_or_mining",
+          "energy_or_petrochem",
+          "agribusiness_or_grain",
+          "construction",
+          "professional_services",
+          "holding_or_spv",
+          "unknown",
+          "other"
+        ],
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "name",
+      "jurisdiction"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "dated_sources": {
+    "items": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  "decision_stage": {
+    "enum": [
+      "onboarding",
+      "periodic_review",
+      "pre_transaction",
+      "post_alert",
+      "committee_review",
+      "other"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "exposure_facets": {
+    "items": {
+      "enum": [
+        "ownership_or_control",
+        "financial_flows",
+        "ict_or_dual_use_goods",
+        "metals_or_mining",
+        "energy_or_petrochem",
+        "agribusiness_or_grain",
+        "transit_or_re_export",
+        "correspondent_banking",
+        "professional_enablers",
+        "shell_or_layered_structure",
+        "other"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "minItems": 1,
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  "jurisdiction_review_scope": {
+    "items": {
+      "enum": [
+        "ofac",
+        "eu",
+        "uk_ofsi",
+        "un",
+        "fatf",
+        "eag",
+        "national_regulator",
+        "other"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  "notes": {
+    "minLength": 1,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "requested_output": {
+    "enum": [
+      "structured_json",
+      "markdown_summary",
+      "both"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "risk_question": {
+    "minLength": 1,
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / exposure_request / required
      Added value: +[
+  "counterparty",
+  "exposure_facets",
+  "dated_sources",
+  "risk_question",
+  "decision_stage"
+]
  2. Addedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers: it discloses that local stdio runs on user-supplied evidence only, that no live retrieval happens, that a name match is not identity verification, and that human review is required. It also names the exact output components returned.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is information-dense and well-ordered: purpose, input contract, output, then operational caveats. It is longer than average, but the legal-regime enumeration and field listing are necessary for correct invocation. Slightly compressed phrasing would make it a 5.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the required input shape, the legal review scope, the output dimensions, the evidence limitations, and the need for human review. This is adequate 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.

Parameters3/5

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

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including nested object examples and a pointer to get_schema for the full contract. The tool description restates the key fields but does not add materially new semantics beyond what the schema already captures.

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?

The description names a precise verb ('triage'), a specific resource ('secondary-sanctions exposure for a CIS-domiciled counterparty'), and enumerates the legal frameworks and jurisdictions involved. This clearly communicates what the tool does and distinguishes it as a specialized risk-assessment tool among the sibling tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives concrete usage context: EU/UK/UAE/Singapore enhanced due diligence against OFAC EO 14114, EU sanctions, UK OFSI, and FATF/EAG typologies. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over a sibling or when not to use it, so it falls short of full alternative routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools