Screens EVM and Solana wallet addresses against OFAC SDN sanctions lists, Lazarus Group attributions, and known DeFi exploit/drainer blacklists. Price: 0.010 USDC on Base or Solana.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | EVM or Solana wallet address to screen |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | ||
| sanctioned | Yes | ||
| compliance_status | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "address": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "compliance_status": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "sanctioned": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "address",
+ "sanctioned",
+ "compliance_status"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond that: the tool is paid (0.010 USDC) with named accepted payment chains, and it discloses which external data sources drive the verdict. It does not mention rate limits, latency, or failure/payment behavior.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler: the capability and its data sources come first, and the cost/payment constraint follows. Every clause carries information an agent needs.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover side-effect safety; the description fills the remaining gaps that matter most for a paid, open-world lookup (data sources and cost). Missing only routing versus sibling wallet tools and any note on how a match is surfaced or charged.
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?
Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents 'address'. The description's 'EVM and Solana' phrasing reinforces accepted address families but adds no format, validation, or chain-detection detail beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
Names a specific verb ('screens') and resource ('EVM and Solana wallet addresses') and enumerates the exact watchlists consulted (OFAC SDN, Lazarus Group, DeFi exploit/drainer blacklists), so the agent knows precisely what check is performed. It stops short of distinguishing itself from close siblings like checkWalletDrainer or analyzeEvmWallet, even though drainer blacklists overlap with one of them.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this versus the siblings that also inspect wallets (checkWalletDrainer, analyzeEvmWallet, runFullEnterpriseRiskAudit). Usage is only implied by the word 'screens'; no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are given.
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.