Genexxis paid agent tools (x402)

sanctions_risk

Wallet address risk screen before you pay or accept funds: OFAC SDN crypto addresses, Circle USDC blacklist (Base, Ethereum) and Tether USDT blacklist (Ethereum) read live on-chain, plus public labels for Tornado Cash (mixer, OFAC-delisted 2025) and ~7,400 exploit, heist and phishing addresses. Returns block, high_risk, elevated or no_known_risk with reasons and sources. Exact match only, no exposure analysis. 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_risk"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	EVM address (0x...). Non-EVM addresses get the OFAC SDN check only

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Without any annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses data provenance, live on-chain reads, the four return tiers plus reasons and sources, a noted caveat (Tornado Cash OFAC-delisted 2025), and an exact-match limitation. It also states cost and payment mechanism ($0.005 USDC via x402 on Base), which is critical pre-invocation context.

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?

Information-dense with the purpose and safety use case front-loaded, and every clause (sources, tiers, limitations, price) is useful. The first sentence is long and multi-clause, slightly reducing scannability, but nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is checked, what tiers come back, what the limits are, and what it costs. No material gap remains.

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% and the single 'address' parameter is already documented as an EVM address with the non-EVM fallback rule. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so this is the baseline case where the schema does the work.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource (wallet address risk screen) and enumerates the exact data sources (OFAC SDN, Circle USDC blacklist, Tether USDT blacklist, Tornado Cash labels, ~7,400 exploit addresses). The 'Exact match only, no exposure analysis' clause pins down its scope, letting an agent separate it from broader screening siblings such as sanctions_screen or guard_check.

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?

The opening 'before you pay or accept funds' gives a concrete trigger, and 'Exact match only, no exposure analysis' defines the boundary condition for when it isn't the right tool. It does not name an alternative sibling for the exposure case, so it stops short of an explicit routing recommendation.

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?