Skip to main content
Glama

OnchainDiligence

by com.onchaindiligence

screen_name

Read-only

OFAC name screening: fuzzy-match a person or company name against the official US Treasury OFAC Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list (primary names + strong aliases). Returns scored candidate matches with the matched name, SDN type, and program. SCOPE: this is a screening aid for AML / KYC / sanctions compliance — a match is a candidate to investigate with secondary identifiers (DOB, nationality, ID), NOT a determination. Weak AKAs are not screened, per OFAC guidance.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesPerson or company name to screen against the OFAC SDN list
thresholdNoOptional match confidence cutoff 0.5–1.0 (default 0.85). Lower = more candidates, more false positives.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description transparently discloses the output format (scored candidate matches with matched name, SDN type, program), the scope (screening aid, not determination), and the limitation that weak AKAs are excluded. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

The description is concise at three sentences, front-loading the main purpose. It is well-structured: first the action, then output, then scope/limitations. Minor improvement could be breaking into bullet points for readability, but overall efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (scored candidates with matched name, SDN type, program). It covers important constraints (weak AKAs excluded, need for secondary identifiers). For a screening tool with simple parameters, this is fully complete.

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% for both parameters, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema's descriptions for 'name' and 'threshold'. The schema already explains the threshold range and default. The description's context aligns but does not enhance parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the verb 'fuzzy-match' and the resource 'person or company name against the OFAC SDN list'. It specifies it screens primary names and strong aliases, distinguishes from weak AKAs, and clarifies it is a screening aid, not a determination. The purpose is distinct from sibling tools like 'screen_wallet' or 'verify_uk_company'.

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 description explicitly states when to use: for AML/KYC/sanctions compliance. It provides clear exclusions: weak AKAs are not screened, and a match is not a final determination, requiring secondary identifiers. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use this tool over others.

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

All OnchainDiligence toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool has a distinct purpose, but 'diligence' overlaps with the combination of 'screen_wallet' and 'verify_uk_company', which could cause confusion about when to use the combined vs. individual tools. However, the descriptions clearly delineate that 'diligence' runs both checks in parallel with an additional disclaimer, so the ambiguity is limited.

Naming Consistency4/5

Four of five tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (screen_name, screen_wallet, verify_uk_company, verify_us_company), but 'diligence' is a bare noun that doesn't fit the convention. This minor deviation is still readable and predictable overall.

Tool Count5/5

With 5 tools, the set is well-scoped for a compliance/due diligence server. Each tool covers a distinct aspect (name screening, wallet screening, UK company verification, US company verification, and a combined diligence option) without unnecessary bloat or trivial additions.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the core due diligence workflows: sanctions screening for both names and wallets, company verification for both UK and US entities, and a combined diligence call that ties together the on-chain and off-chain checks. There are no obvious dead ends or missing critical operations within the stated domain.

Resources