P0: sanctions, KYB and payee checks

by dev.workers.x402-bazaar-rank-worker.x402-bazaar-rank

Sanctions changes

sanctions_changes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use when you run sanctions monitoring and need what changed since your last run: entries added, removed and amended on OFAC SDN, UK, EU, Canada and US CSL since a date, one format, with list. Returns the paid x402 request for your input (GET /sanctions/changes, $0.02 per call; schema linked). Call that URL with an x402 or MPP client to get the data. Bad input is refused before any charge. With an access key (Authorization: Bearer p0k_..., buy at https://x402-bazaar-rank.x402-bazaar-rank-worker.workers.dev/keys/buy?usd=5) the tool pays the call itself, returns the data and deducts the price. First call each day returns the data itself, free; later calls return the paid request.

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": {
      "since": "<since>"
    },
    "name": "sanctions_changes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Events per page, default 100
`lists`	No	Optional comma list of ofac, uk, eu, ca, csl; default all
`since`	Yes	Date YYYY-MM-DD: changes in list versions dated on or after it (log keeps 90 days)
`offset`	No	Events to skip (newest first), default 0

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Far beyond the annotations, it discloses the paid x402 pricing ($0.02/call), the exact GET path, that bad input is refused before any charge, the access-key flow with header format and purchase URL, and the free-first-call-per-day rule. These are exactly the non-obvious behavioral facts an agent needs before committing to a paid call.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the when-to-use condition, then the payment mechanics in a logical progression. It is dense but nearly every clause carries load (pricing, refusal-before-charge, key auth, free daily call); the long purchase URL is the only mild bloat.

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 tool with a non-trivial payment/auth flow, the description covers invocation, cost, and failure behavior thoroughly. The return shape is only described as 'the data' (schema is said to be linked), which is an acceptable but modest gap given no output schema is present.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents limit, lists, since, and offset including the 90-day log retention. The description confirms the date-based semantics and 'one format, with list' but adds no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('what changed since your last run: entries added, removed and amended') and enumerates the covered lists (OFAC SDN, UK, EU, Canada, US CSL). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like sanctions_screening (point-in-time screening) and lei_changes (LEI data, not sanctions lists).

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 an explicit trigger ('use when you run sanctions monitoring and need what changed since your last run') and a clear alternative framing versus screening. It does not explicitly name a sibling to avoid, so it falls short of a 5, but the monitoring-delta context is unambiguous.

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

All P0: sanctions, KYB and payee checks 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?