Sausage Trust

Full OFAC dossier

sanctions_entity

The complete OFAC record for one entity number: all aliases, addresses, sanctions programs, and extracted identifiers (passports, tax ids, DOBs). Use after sanctions_screen returns a candidate. Paid: call without x_payment to receive this call's exact terms (amount, asset, network), sign them, then call again with x_payment. The free pricing tool lists every price at once.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	OFAC ent_num from a screen result.
`x_payment`	No	Optional signed x402 payment payload (base64, what the X-PAYMENT header carries). Omit to receive the exact payment terms; sign them (e.g. @x402/fetch) and call again with this argument to settle and get the data.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the critical paid nature and the exact workflow: call without x_payment to get terms, sign, then call again with x_payment. This is significant behavioral context beyond the schema, though it doesn't mention failure modes or response structure.

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?

Three concise sentences, each serving a purpose: function, usage context, and payment flow. Information is front-loaded and there is no redundancy or filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description adequately covers purpose, usage context, payment mechanism, and output contents (aliases, addresses, programs, identifiers). Since no output schema exists, this listing helps set expectations, though it omits error handling details which are not critical for this tool.

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 coverage is 100%: both `id` and `x_payment` already have detailed descriptions. The tool description adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool returns the complete OFAC record for one entity, including aliases, addresses, programs, and extracted identifiers. It distinguishes itself from sanctions_screen by focusing on a single candidate entity, but lacks an explicit verb like 'Gets' or 'Fetches', instead using a declarative noun phrase.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly instructs to 'Use after sanctions_screen returns a candidate', and explains the two-step payment flow. It also points to the free `pricing` tool as an alternative for listing all prices at once, giving clear when-to-use and alternatives.

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

All Sausage Trust tools Inspect

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

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource type (crypto address, domain, email, IBAN, phone, URL, vessel, entity name) or a distinct purpose (pricing, data discovery, data request). Overlapping sanctions tools are clearly differentiated by target: address_screen for addresses, sanctions_screen for names, vessel_screen for vessels, and sanctions_entity for detailed records after screening.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most data-check tools follow a consistent object_verb pattern (e.g., address_screen, email_check, phone_check). However, find_data and request_data invert the order, domain_intel uses a noun instead of a verb, and pricing stands alone as a gerund, creating mixed conventions.

Tool Count5/5

12 tools is well within the ideal range for a data-screening server. Each tool covers a distinct verification task, and the additional meta tools (pricing, find_data, request_data) are useful entry points without bloating the core purpose.

Completeness4/5

The server covers a comprehensive set of screening and validation tasks across sanctions, domain, email, phone, IBAN, and URL. It includes a discovery tool (find_data) and a suggestion tool (request_data) to fill gaps, though an IP checker or company registry lookup could be considered minor omissions.

Resources

Need Help?