Skip to main content
Glama

Genexxis agent data APIs

by com.genexxis
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

sanctions_screen

Fuzzy-screen a name against OFAC SDN, UN, EU, UK, Swiss SECO, World Bank debarment and US BIS/State/Treasury non-SDN lists (optional lists= filter): matches with list, id, primary name, matched alias, score, type, programs, countries, dates of birth, listing date and reference, plus the date each list was checked. Price: $0.003 USDC per call, paid with x402 on Base.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesPerson, company or vessel name (any script; accents and legal suffixes are ignored)
typeNoOptional filter: individual, entity or vessel
listsNoOptional comma list to restrict: ofac, un, eu, uk, seco, worldbank, bis, us_csl (default all)
countryNoOptional country name or ISO2 code; boosts entries linked to that country
birthYearNoOptional 4-digit birth year (individuals); boosts entries within 1 year, demotes clear mismatches
thresholdNoMinimum score 0.5-1, default 0.85

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / lists
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional comma list to restrict: ofac, un, eu, uk, seco, worldbank, bis, us_csl (default all)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that matching is fuzzy, that output includes scores plus the date each list was checked (useful for audit freshness), and, notably, the cost model ($0.003 USDC per call, paid via x402 on Base), which is critical pre-invocation context. It omits rate limits and whether results are cached.

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?

One front-loaded sentence: purpose and coverage first, then the return fields, then price. Dense but every clause is functional. The long enumerations of return fields and lists are wordy but each serves as output documentation, so nothing is truly 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (list, id, primary name, matched alias, score, type, programs, countries, DOBs, listing date/reference, checked date). Combined with the disclosed price and the fuzzy-match semantics, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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%, so all six parameters (name, type, lists, country, birthYear, threshold) are already documented with types and effects. The description only restates the lists filter, adding no syntax or behavioral detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (fuzzy-screen a name) and enumerates the exact list sources covered (OFAC SDN, UN, EU, UK, SECO, World Bank, BIS/State/Treasury non-SDN). This cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling sanctions_address, which screens addresses rather than names.

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 '(optional lists= filter)' parenthetical tells the agent it can narrow scope, and the name-vs-address split against sanctions_address is implied by the resource. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or statement about what to do when a screen returns a borderline score.

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

All Genexxis agent data APIs toolsInspect
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