AgentEconomy Compliance API
Server Details
Paid KYC, AML, and regulatory risk assessment over MCP via x402 USDC micropayments on Base.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.2/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
The tools are mostly distinct with aml_screen focusing on AML screening, kyc_check on KYC identity verification, and risk_report combining both. However, there is overlap as both aml_screen and kyc_check reference OFAC and UN sanctions, which could cause confusion for an agent selecting between them.
Tool names use lowercase_snake_case but not a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., 'aml_screen' is noun_verb, 'kyc_check' is noun_noun, 'risk_report' is noun_noun). While readable, the inconsistency may reduce predictability.
With 3 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of compliance checks. Each tool serves a clear function—screening, verification, and comprehensive reporting—without unnecessary bloat.
The tool surface covers core compliance operations (AML, KYC, risk reporting) but has minor gaps such as a separate PEP screening tool or the ability to update watchlists. The overlap between aml_screen and kyc_check also suggests a slightly hazy boundary.
Available Tools
3 toolsaml_screenADestructiveInspect
Screen an entity against Anti-Money Laundering (AML) watchlists including OFAC SDN and UN sanctions. Returns risk level, risk score, recommendation (approve/review/reject), and sanctions match details. Uses Jaro-Winkler fuzzy name matching for accurate detection. Cost: $0.05 USDC per screening. Caller must supply a signed X-PAYMENT header on the MCP HTTP request.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | No | Transaction amount | |
| currency | No | Currency code (e.g. USDC, ETH, BTC) | |
| entity_name | Yes | Full legal name of the person or entity to screen | |
| transaction_id | No | Transaction identifier for audit trail | |
| wallet_address | No | Blockchain wallet address to check |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it reveals fuzzy name matching algorithm (Jaro-Winkler), specific watchlists, cost per screening, and required header. Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, which aligns with the billing/logging side effects described. No contradictions.
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 very concise: three sentences with no filler. The main action and key details (watchlists, returns, cost, header) are front-loaded. Every sentence adds essential information.
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?
Given the tool has 5 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description explains what is returned (risk level, score, recommendation, match details) and includes practical context (cost, header). It could be more complete by mentioning any limitations or behaviors for edge cases (e.g., multiple matches), but overall it sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and usage.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters. The description does not add detail on specific parameters beyond the schema. It mentions 'entity_name' and 'wallet_address' but adds no new semantic information. 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 screens an entity against AML watchlists, specifying OFAC SDN and UN sanctions. The verb 'screen' and resource 'entity against AML watchlists' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings (kyc_check, risk_report) by focusing on AML screening, though not explicitly contrasting.
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 provides clear usage context: for AML screening. It mentions cost ($0.05) and required header (X-PAYMENT), which are practical usage prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for other use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
kyc_checkADestructiveInspect
Run a KYC (Know Your Customer) identity verification check against OFAC and UN sanctions lists. Returns verification status, risk score (0-100), and sanctions/PEP match results. Powered by real government sanctions data (OFAC SDN + UN Security Council). Cost: $0.01 USDC per check. Caller must supply a signed X-PAYMENT header on the MCP HTTP request.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | No | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code (e.g. US, GB, ZA, IR) | |
| entity_id | No | National ID, passport number, or company registration number | |
| entity_name | Yes | Full legal name of the person or entity to verify | |
| wallet_address | No | Blockchain wallet address (e.g. 0x...) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds critical behavioral context beyond annotations: cost ($0.01 USDC per check), required X-PAYMENT header, and that results are based on real government sanctions data. These details explain the destructiveHint annotation and openWorldHint.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details and key side effects. Every sentence adds value; no redundant or superfluous text.
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?
The description covers the main purpose, return values, data source, and cost. However, it does not explain how optional parameters (country, entity_id, wallet_address) affect the check, which would be helpful for correct usage.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on parameters (entity_name, country, etc.), though it mentions the payment header which is not a parameter. No new insight into parameter usage is provided.
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 performs a KYC identity verification check against specific sanctions lists, and mentions the return values. It's a specific verb+resource and distinguishable from sibling tools (aml_screen, risk_report) by the focus on identity verification.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools aml_screen or risk_report. The description does not mention trade-offs, prerequisites, or alternative scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
risk_reportADestructiveInspect
Generate a comprehensive regulatory risk assessment report combining KYC verification, AML sanctions screening, and multi-jurisdiction risk analysis. Returns overall risk level, risk score, sanctions results, jurisdiction-specific risk factors, and recommended compliance actions. Cost: $0.10 USDC per report. Caller must supply a signed X-PAYMENT header on the MCP HTTP request.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_name | Yes | Full legal name of the person or entity | |
| entity_type | No | Entity type: 'individual' or 'company' | |
| wallet_address | No | Blockchain wallet address | |
| include_transaction_analysis | No | Include on-chain transaction analysis in the report |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description discloses cost ($0.10 USDC) and the need for a signed X-PAYMENT header, which are behavioral traits beyond annotations. It aligns with destructiveHint=true. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description lists expected return values (risk level, score, etc.). It covers cost and authentication. However, it lacks details on error handling, interpretation of risk levels, or what happens on failure.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats entity_name's purpose but adds no significant meaning beyond the schema. It does not detail individual parameter behaviors or constraints.
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?
Description clearly states the tool generates a comprehensive regulatory risk assessment report combining KYC, AML, and multi-jurisdiction analysis. It lists specific outputs (risk level, risk score, sanctions results, etc.) and distinguishes itself from siblings (aml_screen, kyc_check) by being a combined report.
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?
Description implies usage context (comprehensive assessment) and mentions cost and payment header requirement. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. the individual AML or KYC tools, nor does it specify when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!