Skip to main content
Glama

x402-endpoints

by io.github.digitalweb33333-creator

sanctions_screen

Screen a name against the official EU consolidated sanctions list (FISMA) — returns matches with a similarity score and context (EU reference, type, programme), not a binary yes/no. Price: $0.05 per call (x402 payment, USDC on Base mainnet). Name screening against the official EU consolidated financial sanctions list (FISMA). Fuzzy-matches a person or entity name and returns matches with a similarity score plus context: EU reference, subject type, programme and designation details. Not a binary yes/no — returns ranked matches for human review. For KYB, AML and payment-compliance agents. Input: name (+optional type).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesName to screen (person or entity), e.g. 'Saddam Hussein'
typeNoOptional: 'person' or 'enterprise'
limitNoMax matches [1-50], e.g. 10
thresholdNoMin similarity 0-1 to report a match (default 0.7)

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses pricing ($0.05/call with x402 payment on Base mainnet), fuzzy matching behavior, non-binary output, and returned context fields. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; it adequately covers behavioral traits without contradictions.

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?

Description is concise yet comprehensive, front-loading key information. Every sentence adds value: purpose, pricing, behavior, use cases, input hint. No redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (fuzzy matching, multiple params, no output schema), the description fully covers return format (matches with similarity, EU reference, type, programme, designation details), use cases, and input. No gaps identified.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra value beyond schema (example input, mention of 'human review'), but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 the tool screens against the EU consolidated sanctions list and returns ranked matches with similarity scores and context. Differentiates from siblings by specifying the exact official list and its usage for KYB/AML/compliance.

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?

Provides explicit use cases ('For KYB, AML and payment-compliance agents') and clarifies non-binary output requiring human review. Implicitly suggests not for binary yes/no needs, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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