SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

OFAC SDN list digital-currency addresses: list up to 200

crypto_sanctioned_crypto_wallets

Read-only

OFAC SDN list digital-currency addresses (from the Remarks field 'Digital Currency Address - '): list up to 200 entries with currency code, address and sanctioned entity name, optionally filtered by currency or checked for one address. Covers the current SDN.CSV only; the list is not complete for every chain, and a miss is not proof an address is clean. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

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": "crypto_sanctioned_crypto_wallets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	How many entries to return, 1 to 200 (default 20)
`address`	No	Optional address to check against the list
`currency`	No	Optional currency code such as XBT, ETH, TRX, USDT

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`asOf`	No
`source`	No
`entries`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`addressCheck`	No
`totalEntries`	No
`matchedEntries`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the data boundary ('covers the current SDN.CSV only'), the incompleteness risk, and the commercial terms ($0.002 USDC per successful call, x402 on Base/Solana/Arc, failed calls not charged). Billing behavior and coverage limits are exactly the kind of traits annotations cannot express.

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?

A single front-loaded paragraph that opens with what is returned and what it comes from, then folds in limits, modes and pricing. It is dense but nearly every clause carries decision-relevant information; the payment-rail enumeration (Base, Solana or Arc) is the one detail an agent likely does not need for invocation.

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?

With an output schema present, return shape need not be explained, and the description still covers source scope, the completeness caveat, filtering modes and cost. For a zero-required-parameter, read-only screening tool, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly or interpret a miss 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%, so all three parameters (limit, address, currency) are already documented, including the default and range. The description adds only modest framing — that currency is used to filter and address to check a single value — and supplies no format guidance for the address parameter beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies where 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('OFAC SDN list digital-currency addresses: list up to 200 entries') and names the exact source field ('Digital Currency Address - <CODE> <address>'), plus the returned fields (currency code, address, sanctioned entity name). No sibling covers sanctions screening, so an agent can identify the right tool without opening the schema.

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?

Describes the two operating modes clearly: bulk listing optionally filtered by currency, or 'checked for one address'. It also supplies a critical interpretation caveat ('the list is not complete for every chain, and a miss is not proof an address is clean') that tells the agent how to treat negative results. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative among siblings, which keeps it just shy of 5.

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

All SiteCheck Crypto & Finance 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.

Resources

Need Help?