Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Agent Data Tools: Company, compliance and checks

by io.github.Nutshell2000
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

OFAC sanctions check: wallet or name

ofac_check
Read-only

OFAC sanctions check: screen a crypto wallet address (EVM, Bitcoin, Tron and more) or a person or company name against the OFAC SDN list and get a verdict (block, review, pass) with every match, SDN id and program. A screening aid, not legal advice. Use before paying or accepting funds, or when onboarding a counterparty. Example: address=0x098B716B8Aaf21512996dC57EB0615e2383E2f96. Price $0.009/call via x402 USDC or a card key (/credits), first 25 free; failed calls free. Reads or computes only and changes nothing; each call is charged, so repeats are not free.

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": "ofac_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoPerson or company name; matches when every word appears in a listed name or alias
addressNoCrypto address to check (give address, name or both)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses the return shape (block/review/pass verdict with every match, SDN id and program), a legal disclaimer, payment and auth mechanics (x402 USDC or card key, first 25 free, failed calls free), and that each call is charged so repeats are not free, which corroborates idempotentHint=false. That is meaningful context an agent cannot get from the structured fields.

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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with what is screened and what comes back, with usage and cost following. Every clause carries information, though the pricing and payment-mode sentence is long enough that a trivially shorter phrasing would read better.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the verdict values and match fields. All optionality (address, name or both), cost model and the not-legal-advice caveat are present, so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the 'give address, name or both' combination rule. The description adds chain coverage (EVM, Bitcoin, Tron, and more) and a sample address value, but nothing about name-matching syntax or ambiguity handling beyond what the schema already says.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete verb and resource pair: screen a crypto wallet address (EVM, Bitcoin, Tron) or a person/company name against the OFAC SDN list, returning a verdict plus matches, SDN ids and programs. That is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from sibling tools like sanctions_check, sanctions_screen or check_counterparty, so an agent cannot rule those out from the text alone.

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?

Gives explicit situational triggers: before paying or accepting funds, or when onboarding a counterparty. It also supplies a concrete example call. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming the sibling screeners as alternatives, which keeps it below a 5.

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

All Agent Data Tools: Company, compliance and checks 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