Skip to main content
Glama

LiveDataLink

by io.github.blackboxfoundry

sanctions_screen_entity

Read-onlyIdempotent

Screen a single name or entity against the four major sanctions / denied-party lists (OFAC SDN, EU consolidated, UN consolidated, BIS DPL). Returns matches with confidence scores. This call uses the standard hosted query allowance; the free tier includes 1,000 queries/month and paid plans use the published plan pricing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesName or entity string to screen.
limitNoMaximum matches to return. Defaults vary per tool.
sourcesNoRestrict screening to a subset of source lists. Defaults to all four. Allowed: OFAC_SDN, EU_CFSP, UN_SC, BIS_DPL.
thresholdNoMinimum confidence score (0..1) for a result to be returned. Defaults to 0.85.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful non-obvious context by disclosing the query allowance/pricing model and stating that results include confidence scores.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three compact sentences front-load the core function and scope, then state return behavior and quota/cost context. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Together with the fully covered schema and safety annotations, the description gives an agent enough to select and invoke the tool: action, source lists, output expectation, and metering behavior. It would be more complete if it explicitly noted that batch, address, and alias searches belong to the corresponding sanctions_* siblings.

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 the structured field descriptions carry the parameter semantics. The description adds only mild context ('single' name/entity and the four list categories) without new syntax, default, or allowed-value details.

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?

Clearly states a specific action ('Screen a single name or entity') and the exact sanctions lists checked (OFAC SDN, EU consolidated, UN consolidated, BIS DPL). The 'single' qualifier distinguishes it from sanctions_screen_batch and sanctions_screen_address.

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?

The description conveys that this tool is for a single name/entity screening request, giving clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name the batch, address, or alias sibling tools or state when to prefer them, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

All LiveDataLink toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools overlap heavily across domains: caselaw_search vs court_case_search vs court_opinion_search, caselaw_citation_lookup vs court_citation_resolver, and a cluster of company due-diligence tools (company_trust_check, counterparty_risk_score, entity_dossier, issuer_diligence_dossier, kyb_aml_evidence_case_file) that all screen a company for sanctions/risk/standing. With 290 tools, an agent will frequently face multiple equally plausible choices for the same user intent.

Naming Consistency3/5

The vast majority of tools follow a clean domain-prefix + snake_case pattern (census_, eia_, fmcsa_, npi_, cfpb_, etc.), but there are notable exceptions: entity_resolve and resolve_entity are reversed duplicates, reg_search (Federal Register) sits next to reg_cfr_search (CFR) with confusingly similar names, and carrier_monitor_recheck deviates from the carrier_vetting_* family.

Tool Count1/5

290 tools is an extreme count under any rubric, far exceeding even the 50+ threshold for the lowest score. While the group-filtering mechanism and meta-tools like list_tool_groups and search_available_datasets mitigate the practical burden, the raw surface is still massively oversized for an agent to select from accurately and efficiently.

Completeness4/5

For a read-only data-aggregation server, coverage is remarkably comprehensive across 59 domains, and generic fallbacks like cdc_dataset_query, eia_series_lookup, fred_observations, and bls_series prevent most dead ends. Minor gaps exist (a single GitHub tool, demo-only property_lookup coverage, no write/update operations anywhere), but the stated data-access purpose is well served.

Resources