Skip to main content
Glama

x402-endpoints

by io.github.digitalweb33333-creator

compliance_wallet_screen

Crypto wallet sanctions & compliance screening (AML/KYT): screen any EVM/Solana/Bitcoin/Tron/XRP wallet against the official OFAC SDN crypto list (UN/UK declared) with mixer (Tornado Cash) exposure and wallet age, returning PASS/WARN/BLOCK and a cryptographically SIGNED compliance receipt (list-version-pinned, verifiable offline) for audit. OFAC wallet check, travel-rule / KYT counterparty screening with an auditable attestation an agent can keep. Price: $0.005 per call (x402 payment, USDC on Base mainnet).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainsNoOptional comma-separated EVM chains for exposure/age, e.g. 'ethereum,base'
walletYesWallet to screen — EVM '0x..', Solana, BTC, TRON 'T..', XRP 'r..'

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses core behavior: screening against OFAC list, mixer exposure, wallet age, output categories (PASS/WARN/BLOCK), signed receipt, and pricing. No annotations, so description handles transparency well.

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?

Three concise sentences front-loading purpose, then additional detail and pricing. Minimal redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

No output schema, but description mentions return values (PASS/WARN/BLOCK and signed receipt). Sufficient for selection but could detail receipt format.

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 covers both parameters (wallet, chains) with descriptions. The description restates schema info without adding new meaning, so baseline 3.

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 it screens wallets for sanctions/AML/KYT against OFAC SDN list, with mixer exposure and wallet age, returning a signed receipt. Distinguishes from siblings by specifying multi-chain support and cryptographic attestation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implied usage for compliance screening but no explicit comparison to sibling tools like sanctions_screen or crypto_wallet_forensics. Lacks when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All x402-endpoints 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes with detailed descriptions. However, there are clusters of similar tools (e.g., multiple token safety and pre-trade verdict tools for different chains) that could cause confusion, though descriptions help differentiate.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent pattern of lowercase snake_case with descriptive prefixes (e.g., agent_, crypto_, x402_). No mixing of conventions or ambiguous names.

Tool Count2/5

52 tools is excessive for a single server, covering a wide range of unrelated domains (crypto, legal, climate, transport, etc.). This overwhelms an agent and suggests a lack of focus.

Completeness2/5

The server lacks a coherent domain; it offers one-off tools across many areas but misses fundamental operations for any specific domain (e.g., no company registry for US, no order placement for crypto). Significant gaps exist.

Resources