Agent Utils (x402)

by dev.workers.revenue-agent-jw.agent-utils-x402-production

OFAC sanctions check for crypto addresses

sanctions_address_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

OFAC sanctions screening for crypto wallet addresses: exact match against every digital currency address on the U.S. Treasury OFAC SDN list (BTC, ETH, USDT, USDC, TRX, SOL, LTC, XMR and more). Useful for compliance and AML checks before paying a counterparty or an x402 payTo. Up to 20 comma-separated addresses; returns sanctioned true/false, SDN name, programs, official link and list freshness. Errors: 400 JSON {error} for invalid input. PAID: $0.002 USDC per call on Base via x402 (MCP transport: retry with params._meta["x402/payment"]). Same tool over plain HTTP: GET /v1/sanctions/address.

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": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "sanctions_address_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	crypto address, or up to 20 comma-separated

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: exact-match semantics, supported assets, the 20-address limit, return fields, 400 error behavior, pricing, and the x402 payment retry mechanism. It is fully consistent with readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true.

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?

The description is dense but front-loaded, leading with what the tool does and the supported asset scope. Every sentence carries operational value: use case, input limit, return fields, error behavior, payment requirement, and HTTP fallback.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description names the return fields and list-freshness signal. It also includes the payment flow and retry guidance needed to invoke a paid x402 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 the schema already documents the single address parameter. The description adds useful semantics beyond the schema by clarifying exact-match screening and supported asset coverage, though it does not add new address syntax details.

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 states a specific verb and resource: OFAC sanctions screening and exact-match checking of crypto wallet addresses against the SDN list. It names supported chains and the compliance/AML use case, distinguishing it from sibling tools such as x402_check.

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 gives clear usage context: compliance and AML checks before paying a counterparty or an x402 payTo. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or point to a specific alternative sibling tool, so it falls short of the top score.

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

All Agent Utils (x402) 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?