Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

APIVerve

by com.apiverve
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Sanctions Screening

SanctionsScreening
Read-only

Sanctions Screening: Sanctions Screening is an OFAC API that checks a person, company or vessel name against the US Treasury OFAC SDN and Consolidated lists, the UN Security Council Consolidated List, the EU consolidated financial sanctions list and the UK Sanctions List. It returns scored JSON matches with the list each hit came from, aliases, dates of birth, addresses and sanctions programs so you can decide whether to block or review. (Cost: 20 credits)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "SanctionsScreening"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe person or company name to screen (minimum 3 characters)
typeNoRestrict screening to one entry type
limitNoMaximum number of matches to return (1-50)
listsNoComma-separated list codes to screen (ofac_sdn, ofac_cons, un, eu, uk). Omit to screen every list
thresholdNoMinimum match score to return, between 0.5 and 1. Lower catches more names but returns more false positives

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
errorNoError message, null on success
statusNo"ok" on success

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description's job is to add context — which it does by disclosing the specific upstream data sources and the 20-credit cost per call. It does not cover rate limits, error behavior for unmatched names, or how scores are normalized, but the sourced-list and cost disclosures are genuinely useful beyond the annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences with the primary capability front-loaded and the cost in a compact parenthetical. The only waste is the redundant 'Sanctions Screening: Sanctions Screening is an OFAC API...' opener that restates the tool name before getting to substance.

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 single-shot lookup tool with a full output schema and complete parameter docs, the description supplies the remaining decision-relevant context: what lists are covered, what the matches contain, and the credit cost. Missing only secondary details like score interpretation guidance or behavior on zero matches, which is minor given the output schema.

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 every parameter (name, type, limit, lists, threshold) is already documented with examples and a default. The description mentions no parameter-level semantics itself — the aliases/DOB/address references describe return fields, not inputs — so this sits at the baseline established by the rich 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?

States a specific verb (checks) and resource (a person, company or vessel name) against four named sanctions lists, plus what comes back (scored JSON matches). No sibling in the toolset covers sanctions/watchlist screening, so the tool is unambiguously identifiable from the name and description alone.

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?

Gives clear context for invocation — compliance screening with the goal of deciding whether to block or review a counterparty — and the cost line helps an agent weigh whether to call it. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming an alternative (e.g., a KYC/company-registry lookups) for a lighter-weight check.

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

All APIVerve toolsInspect
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