Genexxis paid agent tools (x402)

sanctions_address

Check a crypto address (BTC, ETH/EVM, TRON, USDT, XMR, LTC...) for an exact match with OFAC SDN digital currency addresses; returns the designated entity, currency and programs. Price: $0.005 USDC per call, paid with x402 on Base.

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": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "sanctions_address"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	Crypto address; EVM and bech32 compared case-insensitively

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the matching semantics (exact match only, no fuzzy/partial hits), what a hit returns (designated entity, currency, programs), and the cost model ($0.005 USDC per call via x402 on Base). Gaps remain around no-match behavior and error/rate-limit conditions, but the core behavioral profile is disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that moves purpose → return values → pricing with no filler. It is dense rather than bloated; the price/payment tail is operationally necessary for an x402 pay-per-call tool rather than waste.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers purpose, accepted input families, match semantics, return shape, and payment requirements. Only the negative case (address not on the list) and failure modes are unaddressed, which are minor omissions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is already 100% and even documents case-insensitive comparison for EVM/bech32, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by enumerating the accepted address families (BTC, ETH/EVM, TRON, USDT, XMR, LTC...), which tells the agent which inputs are in scope.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Check a crypto address... for an exact match with OFAC SDN digital currency addresses') and lists the supported chains, so an agent can tell what it does without opening the schema. It never names the sibling sanctions_screen or clarifies how this differs from broader screening, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the 'exact match' phrasing hints at when this is appropriate (known-address lookup rather than name-based screening), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to sanctions_screen as the alternative.

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

All Genexxis paid agent tools (x402) 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?