Skip to main content
Glama

AgentEconomy Compliance API

by io.github.Piwe

risk_report

Destructive

Generate a comprehensive regulatory risk assessment report combining KYC verification, AML sanctions screening, and multi-jurisdiction risk analysis. Returns overall risk level, risk score, sanctions results, jurisdiction-specific risk factors, and recommended compliance actions. Cost: $0.10 USDC per report. Caller must supply a signed X-PAYMENT header on the MCP HTTP request.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entity_nameYesFull legal name of the person or entity
entity_typeNoEntity type: 'individual' or 'company'
wallet_addressNoBlockchain wallet address
include_transaction_analysisNoInclude on-chain transaction analysis in the report

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds significant context beyond annotations: cost ($0.10 USDC), payment header requirement, and a summary of return fields. While annotations already flag destructive/readOnly/idempotent hints, the description supplements with operational and cost details.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource. Every sentence is purposeful: first states purpose, second covers return values, cost, and payment. No redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return values, cost, and payment. It could benefit from explicit guidance on when to use vs siblings, but annotations and schema fill some gaps. Overall this is a complete and useful description.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description references the combination of KYC/AML/jurisdiction analysis which maps to entity_type, wallet_address, and include_transaction_analysis, but does not add new syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: generate a comprehensive regulatory risk assessment report combining KYC, AML, and multi-jurisdiction analysis. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools (aml_screen, kyc_check, wallet_screen) which focus on individual components.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies use for a comprehensive risk assessment needing KYC+AML+multi-jurisdiction, but does not explicitly state when to choose this over individual sibling tools or provide exclusion criteria. No alternatives are named, so guidance is only implied.

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

All AgentEconomy Compliance API toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The tools are mostly distinct: aml_screen targets entity screening with fuzzy matching, kyc_check focuses on identity verification with PEP data, risk_report aggregates both, and wallet_screen handles blockchain addresses. However, aml_screen and kyc_check both involve sanctions list checks and have overlapping outputs (risk score, sanctions matches), which could cause initial selection confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names mix verb styles: 'aml_screen' and 'wallet_screen' use the verb 'screen', while 'kyc_check' uses 'check' and 'risk_report' uses 'report'. The pattern is not uniform (e.g., one could expect 'screen_aml' or 'report_risk'), but the names are still readable and indicate their respective functions.

Tool Count5/5

With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for a compliance API. Each tool covers a distinct aspect (AML screening, KYC checks, holistic risk reports, wallet screening) without unnecessary bloat or missing core functionality.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the primary compliance workflows: sanctions screening, identity verification, combined risk assessment, and crypto wallet risk analysis. Minor gaps exist, such as separate PEP-only screening or transaction monitoring, but the core lifecycle for compliance checks is well represented.

Resources