Crypto, web, finance and app data tools

OFAC Sanctions Name Screen

sanctions_name_screen

Screen a person or company name against the US Treasury OFAC SDN list including aliases, with fuzzy matching: match score, entity type, sanctions programs and remarks. Use for KYC, payouts and onboarding.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "sanctions_name_screen"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`limit`	No
`min_score`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description does useful work by disclosing that matching is fuzzy and that results carry a match score, entity type, programs and remarks — important because fuzzy screening produces false positives. It omits rate limits, whether the call is idempotent/read-only (only implied), and what an empty result set signifies.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core screening action and its output shape front-loaded before the usage note. Nothing here could be cut without losing information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so the enumerated return fields are welcome but not strictly required, and the tool's job is adequately framed. The gap is on the input side: for a 3-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage, the description leaves an agent guessing about limit and min_score tuning.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden and largely does not. It mentions a match score, hinting at min_score, but never explains the threshold semantics or its 0.85 default, and the limit parameter is completely unaddressed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (screen a person/company name against the OFAC SDN list) plus the mechanism (aliases, fuzzy matching), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It implicitly separates itself from the sibling sanctions_wallet_check by scoping to names rather than wallet addresses, but never names that alternative outright.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Use for KYC, payouts and onboarding" gives concrete usage contexts, which is more than nothing. However there is no when-not guidance, no mention of the wallet-address sibling as the alternative for on-chain screening, and no guidance on how to handle borderline fuzzy matches.

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

All Crypto, web, finance and app data tools tools Inspect

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

Need Help?