code402-verify-mcp

sanctions_check

Paid ($0.05). Screen Ethereum addresses and entity names against OFAC/UN/EU sanctions lists. Returns clear/hit with matched entries. Supports both EVM addresses and human-readable names.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "sanctions_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`names`	No	Entity names to screen
`addresses`	No	EVM addresses to screen (0x-prefixed)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description usefully discloses the $0.05 cost and the clear/hit result shape. It still omits operational behavior such as read-only status, rate limits, data freshness, and what happens when both parameter arrays or neither are supplied.

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?

The definition is compact and front-loads cost, purpose, and return behavior. The final sentence largely repeats the address/name support already stated in the first sentence, which is minor redundancy.

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 low-complexity two-parameter screening tool with no output schema, the description gives cost, target lists, supported input types, and result summary. Edge-case behavior for empty or combined inputs is left unspecified.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines the two optional arrays. The description reinforces that addresses are EVM and names are human-readable, but adds no constraints beyond that baseline.

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 uses the specific verb 'Screen' and names both resource classes ('Ethereum addresses and entity names') plus the exact sanctions regimes (OFAC/UN/EU). This clearly separates it from generic address or identifier checks in 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 Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It implies the tool is for sanctions screening and notes that both EVM addresses and human-readable names are supported, but it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternatives. Usage is inferable rather than directed.

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

All code402-verify-mcp 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?