OFAC sanctions screening: is this address on the US OFAC sanctioned-address list? Send { address }. Every agent moving money legally needs this pre-transaction check. [x402 paid tool — price $0.05; POST /api/compliance/screen]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | 0x EVM address to screen |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool is paid ($0.05) and uses a POST endpoint, but does not disclose whether it modifies state, required authorization, rate limits, or what happens if an address is found on the list. Basic behavioral traits are missing.
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 concise, with two sentences plus a billing note. The first sentence immediately conveys the core purpose. Every sentence serves a clear function without unnecessary detail.
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 the tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and cost. However, it lacks details on return format (e.g., boolean, list), error handling, or any results behavior. For a simple screening tool, it is minimally adequate but could be more complete.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of the 'address' parameter. The description adds 'Send { address }' which merely reinforces the schema. No additional semantic value beyond the schema is provided.
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 screens addresses against the US OFAC sanctioned-address list, using the verb 'screen' and specifying the resource 'address'. It is specific and informative, but does not differentiate from sibling compliance tools like compliance_label, compliance_risk, or compliance_taint.
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 usage before moving money legally ('Every agent moving money legally needs this pre-transaction check'), providing contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for different compliance checks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are organized by domain prefix (e.g., 'crypto_', 'rh_', 'snipe_'), which helps distinguish between areas. Within each domain, they serve distinct purposes, though some overlap between domains exists (e.g., price data appears in multiple groups). Overall, an agent can navigate effectively.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with a domain prefix and a verb_noun combination (e.g., 'compliance_risk', 'rh_stock', 'snipe_honeypot'). This makes the API predictable and easy to explore.
With 159 tools, the server is extremely large. While the broad scope of web3 and utility functions justifies many tools, the count is significantly above the typical range for a coherent toolkit, potentially overwhelming agents and increasing selection error.
The toolkit covers a wide range of web3 operations: crypto, DeFi, compliance, safety, scheduling, memory, etc. There are no obvious major gaps for its intended purpose, though some niche areas might be missing.