Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

agentum-entity-resolver

by io.github.Algiras
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Screen a wallet address against the OFAC sanctioned-address list

screen_address
Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks a crypto wallet address (EVM, Bitcoin, Tron, Solana, Litecoin) against OFAC's listed digital-currency addresses. Exact match on the official list only; not behavioural or cluster risk. Use when about to pay or send funds to an address, vetting a counterparty wallet, or checking a deposit address. Inputs: address; optional chain (evm, bitcoin, tron, solana, litecoin, other). Returns: sanctioned, riskLevel (CLEAR/EXACT_MATCH/UNKNOWN), addressType, matches[], coverage. Source: OFAC SDN, refreshed every 6h. Same input → same output. $0.002 per call after 5 free calls/day; pay by card credits, x402: https://agentum.asimplek.cloud/pay

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": "screen_address"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNoOptional chain hint: evm | bitcoin | tron | solana | litecoin | other. Rejected if it contradicts the address format.
addressYesWallet address to screen (EVM 0x..., Bitcoin, Tron, Solana, Litecoin or other base58 form)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYes
matchesYes
coverageYes
degradedYes
riskLevelYes
sanctionedYes
addressTypeYes
limitationsYes
degradedReasonNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, and the description adds materially more: data source (OFAC SDN), 6-hour refresh cadence, determinism ('Same input → same output'), exact-match-only limitation, and the cost model ($0.002/call after 5 free/day, card credits or x402). Pricing and freshness are not derivable from any structured field.

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 core action and its limitation, then cleanly labelled Inputs/Returns/Source blocks with no filler. The closing payment link is slightly promotional but is legitimate operational information for an agent that must fund the call.

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?

For a two-parameter screening tool with an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs: chain coverage, exact-match semantics, data source and staleness bound, determinism, and cost. Return-value detail can be left to the output schema as it is here.

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 both parameters including the enum and the 'rejected if it contradicts the address format' rule. The description's 'Inputs:' line restates the parameter names and enum values without adding format, default, or validation meaning beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb (checks/screens) on a specific resource (crypto wallet address across five named chains) against a named list (OFAC digital-currency addresses), and bounds the result scope with 'Exact match on the official list only; not behavioural or cluster risk.' That boundary is what separates it from broader siblings like screen_sanctions or check_vendor.

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?

The 'Use when...' line gives three concrete trigger situations (pre-payment, counterparty vetting, deposit-address check), which is clear context for selection. It stops short of naming the closest alternative (screen_sanctions) or stating exclusions such as non-crypto entities, so an agent must still infer the sibling split.

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

All agentum-entity-resolver toolsInspect
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