Agent Data API

Crypto address risk / AML screen

address_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Screen a wallet address (BTC, ETH/EVM, Solana, Tron, XRP, LTC) against OFAC sanctions and scam lists with on-chain context. tier=max adds the chain's own trail: a 2-hop Bitcoin trace with exposure, a Solana wallet's age and trading record, or a Base wallet's USDC counterparties. For tokens use token_check. Price: standard $0.02, max $0.10. Live; 2-20 s. Risk signals, not a legal finding. Paid with x402 (USDC on Base, Polygon or Solana) per call; failed or empty calls are never charged.

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": "address_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tier`	No	Default standard.
`address`	Yes	The wallet address.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description still adds material context: x402 payment per call, failed or empty calls never charged, cost tiers, latency window, and the important framing that output is 'risk signals, not a legal finding'. That last caveat is exactly the kind of behavioral nuance annotations cannot carry.

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 screening action and covered chains, then the tier fork, then cost/mechanics. Dense but nearly every clause earns its place; the middle tier-max enumeration is list-heavy but is the most decision-relevant content.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so for tier=max (exposure, wallet age, counterparties) and frames the overall output as risk signals rather than a verdict. The standard tier's output shape (e.g., whether a sanctions hit is a boolean or a scored list) is left implicit.

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 baseline is 3, and the description earns above baseline by explaining what tier=max actually produces per chain (2-hop BTC trace with exposure, Solana wallet age/trading record, Base USDC counterparties). The address parameter itself gets no added detail, but it needs none.

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+resource ('Screen a wallet address') with the exact chain coverage (BTC, ETH/EVM, Solana, Tron, XRP, LTC) and the check performed (OFAC sanctions, scam lists, on-chain context). It explicitly routes tokens elsewhere ('For tokens use token_check'), making it distinguishable from the nearest sibling without opening schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives a concrete when-to-use fork: tokens go to token_check, and tier=max is the right choice when you need chain-native trail data with a per-chain breakdown of what that buys. Price and latency (2-20 s) let the agent judge whether the higher tier is worth it.

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

All Agent Data API 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?