Screen a blockchain wallet address against sanctioned/blacklisted crypto addresses (OFAC SDN, USDT Blacklist, USDC Blacklist, Ransomwhere, OpenSanctions, UK OFSI). Costs $0.003 USDC via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | Chain hint: btc, eth, trx, auto (default: auto) | |
| address | Yes | Blockchain wallet address (any chain — BTC, ETH, TRX, etc.) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing the exact data sources screened and the cost per invocation ($0.003 USDC via x402). It does not mention output structure or failure cases, but the identified behavior is clear and honest for a screening tool.
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 two sentences long, front-loads the core action, lists the specific sanction lists, and provides the critical cost information. Every word adds value, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description is largely complete: it states the purpose, data sources, and cost. There is no output schema, so a brief mention of what the response contains (e.g., matches or risk status) would improve completeness, but the description still provides enough for correct selection and invocation.
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?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters ('address' and 'chain'), including valid chain hints and default values. The description adds no additional parameter-level information, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 uses a specific verb 'Screen' and identifies the resource as 'blockchain wallet address' against 'sanctioned/blacklisted crypto addresses', listing concrete sources (OFAC SDN, USDT Blacklist, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like compliance_wallet_entity or compliance_watchlist, which likely target different aspects.
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?
The description implies the tool should be used when you need to screen a wallet address against sanctions lists, and it mentions the cost model. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for related compliance checks (e.g., entity screening or jurisdiction risk), leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.
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.
Several tools have overlapping purposes: compliance_wallet, compliance_watchlist, and compliance_wallet_entity all screen for sanctions; transaction_screen and travel_rule_screen both screen transaction parties; country_brief and country_snapshot both provide Mauritius economic data. Detailed descriptions help but an agent could easily misfile a query.
Tool names are predominantly snake_case but follow no consistent pattern. Some use compliance_ prefix, others are action-based (network_scan, govdata_search), some are noun-only (forex_rates, weather). 'facilitator_kya' is particularly opaque.
22 tools is on the high end. While many serve distinct compliance functions, the inclusion of seven Mauritius-specific data feeds (forex, fuel, weather, etc.) expands the surface beyond a focused compliance tool, making the set feel cluttered.
Core compliance workflows (screening, monitoring, transaction, travel rule) are covered, but there are gaps: no monitor_unsubscribe, no tool to verify travel rule packets, and economic data is only available for Mauritius despite global compliance scope. This creates dead ends for users who need to manage or verify compliance actions.