presign-guard

Wallet sanctions screen ($0.01 via x402)

screen_wallet

Read-only

Paid ($0.01 USDC via x402 on Base or Solana): call this before your agent pays an address, or before accepting money from one. Send any chain's wallet address (EVM 0x..., Solana, Tron, Bitcoin, XRP Ledger, Algorand, or another currency OFAC lists). Get back green/orange/red: red SANCTIONED_ADDRESS with the SDN entry (name, programs, currency) when the address is on the OFAC SDN list, red or orange when GoPlus reports theft, phishing, laundering or mixer use (EVM). Never pay or accept funds on red. The answer carries a signed receipt (EIP-191, bound to your arguments) that proves later which verdict you got.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	The wallet address to screen, any chain: EVM (0x...), Solana, Tron, Bitcoin, XRP Ledger, Algorand, or another currency OFAC lists

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`grade`	No	SAFE, CAUTION, RISKY or AVOID
`accepts`	No	Only on an unpaid call: the x402 payment options
`reasons`	No	Why the verdict is what it is
`receipt`	No	Signed receipt (EIP-191) binding the verdict to your arguments
`verdict`	No	green: go ahead; orange: ask the user; red: do not sign or buy (absent on the payment requirement)
`version`	No
`one_liner`	No	One-line summary
`sanctions`	No	OFAC SDN result: listed, matches (name, programs, currency), published

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 12, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / reasons / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "description": "Why the verdict is what it is",
-    "items": {
-      "additionalProperties": true,
-      "properties": {
-        "code": {
-          "description": "Reason code, e.g. SPENDER_FLAGGED, UNLIMITED_ALLOWANCE, TOKEN_HONEYPOT",
-          "type": "string"
-        },
-        "severity": {
-          "description": "info, warn or critical",
-          "type": "string"
-        },
-        "subject": {
-          "description": "The address or item the reason is about",
-          "type": "string"
-        }
-      },
-      "required": [
-        "code"
-      ],
-      "type": "object"
-    },
-    "type": "array"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "description": "Why the verdict is what it is",
+    "items": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "properties": {
+        "code": {
+          "description": "Reason code, e.g. SPENDER_FLAGGED, UNLIMITED_ALLOWANCE, TOKEN_HONEYPOT",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "severity": {
+          "description": "info, warn or critical",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "subject": {
+          "description": "The address or item the reason is about (null or absent when it is about the whole request)",
+          "type": [
+            "string",
+            "null"
+          ]
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "code"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

AddedOct 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only cover readOnly/openWorld, yet the description adds substantial behavioral context: the $0.01 USDC x402 cost and chains, the green/orange/red verdict scale, the data sources (OFAC SDN, GoPlus for EVM only), the SANCTIONED_ADDRESS field contents, and the EIP-191 signed receipt bound to arguments. That is real disclosure well beyond the safety hints.

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 cost, then the trigger condition, then the verdict semantics — a logical order with no filler. It is dense and long-ish, but nearly every clause (cost, chains, verdict tiers, receipt) carries information an agent needs.

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 paid, single-parameter screening tool with an output schema, the description supplies everything needed to decide and invoke: cost, chains, verdict meanings, the action rule on red, and receipt provenance. Nothing material is missing.

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% for the single address parameter, and the description's chain list (EVM, Solana, Tron, Bitcoin, XRP Ledger, Algorand, other OFAC currencies) duplicates what the schema already says. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — screen a wallet address for OFAC sanctions and risk — and frames the moment it matters ('before your agent pays an address, or before accepting money from one'). It is clearly a wallet-level screener distinct from the presign_check and token_verdict siblings that operate on transactions or tokens.

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 states clearly when to call it (pre-payment and pre-receipt) and gives an action rule ('Never pay or accept funds on red'). It does not name any sibling or explain when to prefer presign_check / wallet_approvals instead, so the routing guidance stops short of explicit alternatives.

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

All presign-guard 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.