screen_crypto_addressScreen a crypto address on any chain (or an ENS name, e.g. vitalik.eth) across the
enabled sanctions and crime lists. lists: optional comma-separated list slugs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lists | No | ||
| address | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the safe read-only nature. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: support for 'any chain' and ENS names, and clarification that `lists` is an optional comma-separated list slugs. It does not describe return format, but an output schema exists, so this is acceptable. No contradiction found.
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 exactly two sentences: the first states the purpose and scope, the second explains the optional parameter. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence earns its place without redundancy.
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?
The description covers purpose, supported input types (any chain, ENS), and the optional lists parameter. With an output schema present and a readOnly annotation, this is sufficient for correct invocation in common use cases. It could mention list slugs format in more detail, but that is a minor gap.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains `lists` as 'comma-separated list slugs' and implies `address` is the crypto address or ENS name from context. This adds meaning beyond what the bare schema provides, though `address` relies on the tool name and description.
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 uses a specific verb 'screen' and identifies the resource as 'crypto address on any chain (or an ENS name)' with a clear scope 'across the enabled sanctions and crime lists'. This distinctly differentiates it from sibling screening tools like screen_email or screen_country.
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 for screening crypto addresses and mentions the context of sanctions and crime lists, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no mention of sibling tools or when not to use this tool.
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.
Each tool targets a unique entity type: IP, country, crypto address, email, government ID, PEP, and website. The two IP-related tools (detect_vpn and geolocate_ip) are distinct in purpose and clearly named. No two tools overlap in what they screen.
The eight screen_* tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., screen_email, screen_website). The two IP tools (detect_vpn, geolocate_ip) use different verbs, creating minor inconsistency but still understandable given their unique actions.
With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for a sanctions/anti-crime screening service. Each tool addresses a distinct screening domain, and the count is neither too thin nor bloated.
The tool set covers a wide range of entity types: IPs, countries, crypto, email, government IDs, PEPs, and websites. A minor gap exists for phone numbers or other entity types, but the primary screening workflows are well-covered and usable without workarounds.