Use when you have a 0x address and need PASS/WARN/BLOCK before paying anyone. Not for company names — use lion_multi_sanctions_bundle or lion_compliance_bundle. $0.001 Base USDC. [x402 paid: GET /api/x402/wallet-screen-json]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Crypto wallet address to OFAC SDN screen (EVM 0x…) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns PASS/WARN/BLOCK and notes a $0.001 Base USDC cost, indicating a paid operation. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, nor does it mention rate limits, authentication, or any side effects beyond cost. This is reasonable for a simple screening tool but not exhaustive.
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 extremely concise, consisting of three short sentences: usage condition, exclusion with alternatives, and cost/endpoint. Every sentence earns its place, and the most critical usage information is front-loaded. No fluff or redundant information.
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?
For a tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: when to use, what it returns (PASS/WARN/BLOCK), cost, and endpoint. It distinguishes from siblings and specifies the address type. There is no missing information an agent would need to correctly invoke it.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'address' parameter, which is clearly described as 'EVM 0x…'. The tool description adds context that this is for payments but does not provide additional syntax or constraints beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds minimal extra meaning.
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 states a specific purpose: screening a 0x wallet address to obtain a PASS/WARN/BLOCK verdict before payments. It explicitly disambiguates from sibling tools by noting it is not for company names, directing to lion_multi_sanctions_bundle or lion_compliance_bundle instead. This clearly identifies the verb (screen/check), resource (wallet address), and expected output.
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?
Provides explicit when-to-use (when holding a 0x address and needing a compliance decision before paying) and when-not-to-use (for company names) with named alternative tools. Also mentions the cost and the specific API endpoint, which gives practical usage context beyond basic conditions.
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.
Tools are largely distinct: enrich provides basic firmographics, research adds web intel, compliance bundle combines sanctions with domain data, wallet screen checks addresses, multi-sanctions covers broader lists. Some overlap exists between research/enrich/verified_file and between sanctions tools, but descriptions explicitly cross-reference when to use each. declare_need serves as a router to reduce ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent 'lion_' prefix with snake_case. Names are descriptive nouns or noun phrases (company_enrich, compliance_bundle, wallet_screen) rather than a strict verb_noun pattern, but the naming is uniformly structured and predictable. Minor deviation: lion_declare_need uses a verb, but the prefix and formatting remain consistent across the entire set.
With 8 tools, the count falls well within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool serves a distinct paid or free purpose in the company/compliance workflow, from lightweight enrichment to full attested dossiers and sanctions screening. No redundancy or missing essential function that would require adding or removing tools.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of company and compliance data needs: free teaser (quick_intel), basic enrichment, detailed research, sanctions screening (single and multi-list), a comprehensive compliance bundle, and a fully attested KYB dossier. The free router (declare_need) also helps agents navigate to the correct paid path, closing the gap of 'which tool do I start with'. No obvious missing operations for a read-only data provider.