check_sanctionsScreen a name against the OFAC Specially Designated Nationals list (keyless deterministic lookup; literal matches with program tags and provenance). Price: 0.002 USDC per call (x402, Base). Resource: https://api.exo-trust.com/execute/check_sanctions. Returns the payment challenge unless already settled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| name_type | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of explaining side effects and behavior. It mentions a 'payment challenge' and 'unless already settled', which is confusing and not explained. There is no clarity on whether this is a read-only lookup, what data is returned, or any associated side effects.
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 relatively short, but it includes extraneous information (price, resource URL) that does not aid tool invocation. The structure mixes functional details with business/pricing information, and the final clause about 'payment challenge' is confusing and not clearly tied to the primary purpose.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the tool returns besides the cryptic 'payment challenge'. The lack of details about response format, error conditions, or expected output leaves the agent uncertain about how to interpret results. The mention of 'unless already settled' suggests some stateful behavior that is not clarified.
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?
The schema provides no descriptions for the parameters, and the tool description adds no explanation. 'name', 'limit', and 'name_type' are undefined in meaning or format. With 0% schema coverage and no supplementary description, the agent has no guidance on how to populate these fields correctly.
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 primary action ('Screen a name against the OFAC Specially Designated Nationals list') and identifies the specific resource (OFAC SDN list). However, the additional phrases about 'keyless deterministic lookup' and 'payment challenge' introduce ambiguity about the exact function.
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?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios where this tool is preferred, limitations, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'lookup_lei' or 'synergy_discovery'. The phrase 'literal matches' hints at behavior but not usage context.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but edgar_financials and edgar_report overlap heavily, with the report apparently building on the same financial data. The three registry lookups (sanctions, VAT, LEI) are distinct, and the text-processing tools are separable.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools use bare verbs (classify, extract, proofread, rewrite, summarize, translate), some use verb_noun (check_sanctions, lookup_lei, validate_vat, code_explain), and others use domain-based names (clinical_dd, edgar_financials, edgar_report, synergy_discovery). No single consistent convention is applied.
14 tools is within the reasonable range and each covers a distinct specialist area, but the set feels slightly broad and includes a few near-duplicates (edgar_financials vs edgar_report). It is not excessive, though tightening could improve focus.
The catalog covers a wide range of domains: sanctions, VAT, LEI, SEC filings, clinical trials, code analysis, text transformation, and discovery. It includes a discovery tool to enumerate specialists, which helps. Minor gaps like missing update/delete-style operations are not expected for a read-only specialist API, so coverage is strong.