SAIKYO: pay from Russia

Check wallet AML risk

check_wallet_aml

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use when the user asks to screen a crypto wallet address for AML risk. Supports TRON, EVM, Bitcoin and TON addresses and returns an indicative screening result.

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": "check_wallet_aml"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`coin`	No	Optional asset ticker, e.g. USDT, BTC, ETH, TON.
`address`	Yes	Wallet address to screen (TRON, EVM/Ethereum, Bitcoin or TON).
`network`	No	Optional network hint: TRC20, ERC20, BEP20, BTC, TON.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description's added value is limited: the chain list duplicates the address parameter's schema text, and only 'indicative screening result' meaningfully sets expectations about output reliability. No auth, rate-limit, or coverage-caveat detail.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the usage trigger is front-loaded before the capability detail. Every clause carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description bears responsibility for explaining return values, yet 'an indicative screening result' leaves the agent guessing whether it gets a score, a boolean, or a list of flags. Inputs are fully covered by the 100%-documented schema, so the gap is confined to output expectations.

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%, with coin, address and network all documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format or interaction detail for these parameters beyond restating the supported chains.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: 'screen a crypto wallet address for AML risk'. It is unmistakable what the tool does and shares no domain overlap with the exchange/route siblings, so no explicit differentiation is required. It stops just short of a 5 only because it never acknowledges the sibling set.

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?

'Use when the user asks to screen a crypto wallet address for AML risk' is an explicit, well-formed invocation trigger. There are no stated alternatives or exclusion conditions (e.g., what to do for non-supported chains), which is the only gap.

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

All SAIKYO: pay from Russia 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?