Check whether a crypto address (BTC/ETH/others) appears on OFAC's sanctioned digital-currency address list. Exact match. Costs $0.01 per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | ||
| api_key | No | Watchtower API key with a funded balance. REQUIRED for this paid tool. Get one via create_api_key then fund it by card at /v1/topup. No free trial. (REST callers can instead pay per call via x402 — see https://watchtower-api.com/docs.) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the $0.01 per-call cost and exact-match semantics, which are useful. However, it omits authentication requirements, return format, and failure/error behavior; the api_key requirement is only present in the parameter description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two sentences. The main action is front-loaded, and the additional details (exact match, cost) are presented without any redundant language.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple check tool, but without an output schema or annotations, the description should clarify the result format and any required auth. The description covers the core screening action and cost, but relies on the parameter schema for the API key requirement and says nothing about the response.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The address parameter has no schema description, and the tool description compensates by indicating it accepts BTC/ETH/others and uses exact matching. The api_key parameter is already well-documented in the schema, so the description adds little there. Overall partial compensation for the 50% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Check'), names the resource ('crypto address'), and explicitly ties it to the OFAC sanctioned digital-currency address list. It also adds 'Exact match' to indicate matching semantics, differentiating it from sibling screening tools like screen_name or check_jurisdiction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives like screen_name or check_jurisdiction. The intended use case is implied by the description and tool name, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: screening names, crypto addresses, batches, PII scanning, jurisdiction checks, LEI resolution, API key creation, watch management, etc. Overlap between screen_name and screen_names_batch is intentional (single vs batch) and well-differentiated.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., screen_name, resolve_lei, check_jurisdiction). No mixing of conventions, making the set predictable and easy to navigate.
With 13 tools, the server is well-scoped for its domain. Each tool addresses a specific need (screening, validation, LEI lookup, etc.) without unnecessary duplication or omission.
Covers most core workflows: name screening, batch, crypto, jurisdiction, LEI, PII scanning, validation, API key management, and watches. Minor gap: no explicit watch deletion or update tool, but watches are created with a max 90-day lifetime, so deletion may be intentional.