Professor Sausages — Trust & Verification

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

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the two-step payment flow, the paid nature, and the types of data returned. It does not mention rate limits or auth details, but covers key behavioral aspects.

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 sentences: purpose, usage, payment. Each sentence adds a distinct layer with no redundancy. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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?

No output schema, yet the description enumerates returned data types (aliases, addresses, programs, identifiers). It fully explains the payment terms flow and references the pricing tool for cost transparency. Sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for x_payment, explaining the sign-and-resubmit process. It reinforces the source of id (screen result) without contradicting the schema.

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 explicitly states it returns 'the complete OFAC record for one entity number' and enumerates contents (aliases, addresses, sanctions programs, identifiers). It distinguishes from siblings by saying to use it after sanctions_screen returns a candidate.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context: 'Use after sanctions_screen returns a candidate.' It also names an alternative for pricing: 'The free `pricing` tool lists every price at once.'

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 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

A4.4/5.0

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

Need Help?