Probity Wallet Reputation

Screen address

screen_address

Screen an Ethereum address or .eth ENS name for on-chain reputation risk. Costs 1 credit. Returns a signed reputation score (-100 to +100), a risk band, a confidence level, a sanctioned flag, the top evidence factors, a screeningId, and a link to the full report. The enhanced review is generated in the background. Fetch it with get_screening_narrative(screeningId). Use the score, band, and sanctioned flag to gate pre-trade or payout flows.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	Ethereum address (0x...) or `.eth` ENS name (e.g. vitalik.eth) to screen. ENS names resolve to their current mainnet address and must resolve or the call errors. Addresses are case-insensitive and need not be checksummed.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`band`	Yes	Reputation band, e.g. Low Risk, Reputable
`score`	Yes	Signed reputation score from -100 to +100. Lower is worse.
`address`	Yes	The screened address
`summary`	Yes	One line verdict headline
`bandCode`	Yes	Band identifier, e.g. LOW_RISK, REPUTABLE
`evidence`	Yes	Up to 10 signals behind the verdict, most severe first
`reportUrl`	Yes	Link to the full report on the Probity dashboard
`confidence`	Yes	Engine confidence in the result
`sanctioned`	Yes	True if the address is a direct OFAC match
`screenedAt`	Yes	When the screen ran (ISO-8601)
`screeningId`	Yes	Immutable identifier for this screen (rsr_...)
`transactionCount`	Yes	Number of transactions analysed

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedAug 5, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / address / description

Previous value: -"Ethereum address (0x...) or `.eth` ENS name (e.g. vitalik.eth) to screen"New value: +"Ethereum address (0x...) or `.eth` ENS name (e.g. vitalik.eth) to screen. ENS names resolve to their current mainnet address and must resolve or the call errors. Addresses are case-insensitive and need not be checksummed."

First observedAug 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description clearly states that screening costs 1 credit and that the enhanced review is generated in the background, which adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations. It also makes the side-effectful nature of the call visible despite readOnlyHint being false.

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?

The description is compact, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value: purpose, cost, outputs, background behavior, and usage guidance. No filler or redundant phrasing is present.

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?

The single parameter is fully documented by the schema, the output is described with key fields and a link to a full report, and the description even names the follow-up tool for the background narrative. An agent has enough context to decide whether and how to call this tool.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'address' parameter, including ENS resolution, case-insensitivity, and error behavior. The description adds little beyond restating that an Ethereum address or ENS name can be screened, so the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Screen an Ethereum address or .eth ENS name for on-chain reputation risk.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like fetching screening history or narratives, and the scope is explicit.

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 application guidance: use the score, band, and sanctioned flag to gate pre-trade or payout flows, and use get_screening_narrative(screeningId) to fetch the enhanced review. It does not explicitly list when not to use this tool versus every sibling, but the primary alternative path is stated.

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

All Probity Wallet Reputation tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?