Genexxis paid agent tools (x402)

sanctions_batch

Screen up to 100 wallet addresses in one call: per address block, high_risk, elevated or no_known_risk with reasons (OFAC SDN crypto addresses, Circle USDC and Tether USDT freeze lists read live on-chain, Tornado Cash and ~7,400 exploit/phishing labels), plus summary counts and a flagged list. Invalid input = 400, not charged. Price: $0.25 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": {
      "addresses": "<addresses>"
    },
    "name": "sanctions_batch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`addresses`	Yes	1 to 100 wallet addresses (duplicates removed). EVM addresses get all checks, others the OFAC check only

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the three outcome tiers, the underlying data sources (OFAC SDN, live Circle/Tether freeze lists, Tornado Cash plus ~7,400 labels), the aggregate outputs, and the error contract (400 = not charged). Pricing and payment rail ($0.25 USDC via x402 on Base) are also stated, which an agent needs before invoking a paid call.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and the batch limit, then the output contract, then error and pricing. The long parenthetical enumerating sources is dense but each element is informative; only the trailing pricing sentence could be tightened.

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?

No output schema and no annotations exist, yet the description sketches the response shape (per-address verdict with reasons, summary counts, flagged list) plus failure and cost semantics. It stops short of specifying field names or the response envelope, which would fully close the gap.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents the 1–100 range, duplicate removal, and EVM vs non-EVM check behavior. The description restates the 100 cap and adds no format, delimiter, or validation detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Screen') and resource ('up to 100 wallet addresses in one call'), which implicitly separates it from the single-address sanctions siblings. It never names sanctions_address or sanctions_screen, so the differentiation is inferable from the batch scope rather than explicit.

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?

The 'up to 100 addresses in one call' framing implies the batch use case, and the EVM-vs-other note in the schema hints at scope. There is no explicit when-to-use versus sanctions_address, sanctions_screen, sanctions_deep or sanctions_risk, and no stated exclusions.

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?