Skip to main content
Glama

Professor Sausages — Trust & Verification

by com.professorsausages

Screen a crypto address against OFAC

address_screen

Screen a crypto address against the full live OFAC SDN list, segmented by chain. Returns a verdict with the matching SDN entries as evidence — never a silent all-clear. 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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNoWhich chain the address belongs to.base
addressYesThe address to screen, in that chain's native format.
x_paymentNoOptional 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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two-phase call behavior, the 'never a silent all-clear' guarantee, the live OFAC SDN list, and chain segmentation. It stops short of error handling or exact return schema, but gives key behavioral insight.

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 with front-loaded purpose. Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, return behavior, and payment flow plus pricing tool reference. No redundancy.

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?

For a paid tool with a two-phase workflow, the description explains the payment mechanism, data source, segmentation, and return behavior. It doesn't detail the exact verdict structure, but without an output schema, this is acceptable. The pointer to the pricing tool adds completeness.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema already covers all parameters (100%), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to x_payment by explaining that omitting it returns payment terms and including it settles the call, which is beyond the schema's description.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Screen') and resource ('a crypto address against the full live OFAC SDN list, segmented by chain'). It differentiates from sibling tools by specifying crypto address screening and chain segmentation.

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?

It describes the two-phase payment workflow (call without x_payment to get terms, then call with x_payment) and points to the pricing tool for a full price list. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative screening tools, the crypto-specific focus and payment instructions provide clear usage context.

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

All Professor Sausages — Trust & Verification 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: sanctions screening for names, addresses, and vessels; verification for domains, emails, IBANs, phones, and URLs; plus clearly separate meta-tools for discovery, pricing, and requests. Even the closely related sanctions_screen and sanctions_entity have clear separation (search vs. detailed record).

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a [noun]_[verb] pattern (address_screen, email_check, url_screen), but there are deviations: domain_intel and sanctions_entity are noun_noun, find_data and request_data are verb_noun, and pricing is a single word. The mixed conventions are still readable but not fully consistent.

Tool Count5/5

With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped for its trust and verification purpose. It covers a broad range of verification types without becoming unwieldy, and the inclusion of meta-tools (pricing, find_data, request_data) adds valuable functionality without bloat.

Completeness5/5

The surface appears complete for the stated domain: sanctions screening (name, address, vessel), domain intelligence, email/IBAN/phone/URL checks, and supporting discovery/pricing/feedback tools. The request_data tool also provides a mechanism to fill future gaps, making the set comprehensive.

Resources