Screen a blockchain wallet address against sanctioned/blacklisted crypto addresses (OFAC SDN, USDT Blacklist, USDC Blacklist, Ransomwhere, OpenSanctions, UK OFSI). Costs $0.003 USDC via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | Chain hint: btc, eth, trx, auto (default: auto) | |
| address | Yes | Blockchain wallet address (any chain — BTC, ETH, TRX, etc.) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses cost ($0.003 USDC) and the specific lists checked, which adds transparency. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, return format, or potential side effects, though 'screen' implies a non-mutating read operation. The cost disclosure is valuable but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action, data sources, and cost. There is no verbosity or wasted detail, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple screening tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, data sources, and cost. It lacks alternative guidance, but overall it provides enough context for an agent to invoke correctly. Given the tool's simplicity, this is close to complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%: the 'address' parameter is self-explanatory and 'chain' has a description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already documents both parameters and possible values (btc/eth/trx/auto). Thus the baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Screen a blockchain wallet address against sanctioned/blacklisted crypto addresses' with a specific verb (screen), resource (wallet address), and scope (specific watchlists). It distinguishes itself from siblings like compliance_watchlist or transaction_screen by naming exact data sources (OFAC SDN, USDT/USDC Blacklists, etc.).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies when to use the tool: whenever you need to check a crypto wallet address against sanctions lists. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which is a minor gap compared to a perfect 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clear distinct purposes, but several compliance screening tools (compliance_wallet, compliance_wallet_entity, compliance_watchlist, due_diligence) overlap partially and could confuse an agent. Country_brief and country_snapshot also have similar scope.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools use a compliance_ or country_ prefix, others use verb_noun (govdata_search, transaction_screen), and some are bare nouns (weather, forex_rates). No single convention is followed.
22 tools is on the heavier side but justified by the broad scope (global sanctions screening, travel rule, monitoring, and Mauritius economic data). The tools cover distinct functional areas, though a few could be consolidated.
Core compliance workflows are covered: screening, risk scoring, monitoring, travel rule, and due diligence. However, the monitoring lifecycle is incomplete (no unsubscribe or list subscriptions), and economic data is only provided for Mauritius, leaving gaps for global country intelligence.