OnchainDiligence
Server Details
Pay-per-call sanctions screening and UK company checks for agents, paid in USDC via x402.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
The three tools are mostly distinct: screen_wallet and verify_uk_company each handle a separate domain, while diligence combines both. The description clarifies that diligence returns independent results with a disclaimer, so there is no functional ambiguity, though agents might be uncertain whether to use the combined tool or the individual ones.
Two tools follow a verb_noun pattern (screen_wallet, verify_uk_company) but 'diligence' is a single-word noun without a verb prefix. This inconsistency is not disruptive but shows a lack of uniform naming convention.
With only 3 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of performing cryptocurrency and company due diligence. Each tool has a clear role, and the count is neither excessive nor insufficient for the domain.
The tool set covers the core functionalities: wallet sanctions screening, UK company lookup, and a combined option. However, there are minor gaps such as lacking a search or list function for companies or a way to screen multiple addresses, but the set is adequate for typical use cases.
Available Tools
3 toolsdiligenceARead-onlyInspect
Run both checks together: sanctions-screen a wallet AND look up a UK company, in parallel. Returns independent results plus an explicit disclaimer that no link between the wallet and company is established.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wallet | Yes | EVM wallet address (0x + 40 hex) | |
| company | Yes | UK company registration number |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reveals parallel execution, independent results, and a disclaimer—adding useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world nature, but disclosure of no link establishment is valuable.
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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no wasted words.
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 moderate complexity and no output schema, the description adequately explains the result (independent results + disclaimer). It could mention that the tool is idempotent or safe, but annotations cover read-only nature.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description paraphrases the parameters (sanctions-screen wallet, look up company) but adds no new semantic info beyond what is already in the schema.
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 clearly states the tool's action: running both checks together in parallel. It specifies the resources (wallet address and UK company number) and distinguishes from siblings that perform each check individually.
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 use when both checks are needed, and the sibling context clarifies alternatives. However, explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisites are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
screen_walletARead-onlyInspect
Screen a wallet address against the Chainalysis on-chain sanctions oracle (US/EU/UN lists). Returns a signed-style boolean flag: sanctioned or not. Use before sending funds to an address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | EVM wallet address (0x + 40 hex) to screen |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context: the tool uses the Chainalysis oracle and returns a signed-style boolean. No contradictory information.
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?
Extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance. No redundant or unnecessary 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?
Given only one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: purpose, source, output, and usage guidance. Minor gap: 'signed-style' could be elaborated, but not critical.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of the 'address' parameter. The tool description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3.
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?
Clearly states the verb 'screen', the object 'wallet address', the source 'Chainalysis on-chain sanctions oracle', and the output format 'signed-style boolean flag'. Distinguishes from siblings which focus on diligence and company verification.
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 guidance: 'Use before sending funds to an address.' Although it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or compare with siblings, the context makes it clear that this tool is for wallet screening.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
verify_uk_companyARead-onlyInspect
Look up a UK company by registration number via Companies House: status, type, incorporation date, registered address, and the people with significant control (PSC).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| companyNumber | Yes | UK Companies House registration number, e.g. 00000006 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries less burden. It adds context about the data source ('via Companies House') and the specific returned fields, but does not disclose potential issues like rate limits, errors, or latency.
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 a single, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource, and efficiently conveys all necessary 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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the purpose, input, and output fields. It could mention error handling or fallback behavior, but the core information is complete.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for the single parameter. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, earning a baseline score.
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 clearly states the action ('Look up') and the resource ('a UK company'), specifies the input (registration number), and enumerates the output fields (status, type, incorporation date, registered address, PSC). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'diligence' and 'screen_wallet'.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any constraints or prerequisites mentioned. The description only states what the tool does, not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!