Agent Data API

address_sanctions_screen

Is this address sanctioned? Screens a crypto address against the US Treasury OFAC SDN list's published digital currency addresses (ETH, USDC, USDT, XBT, SOL, TRX and others): the listed entity, programs and listing date on a match, or not found as of the list date. Adds whether it is a wallet (EOA) or contract on Base, Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism or Polygon, or a wallet or program-derived address on Solana. Not legal advice. Costs $0.005 USDC on Base via x402.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "address_sanctions_screen"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	No	Chain for the wallet/contract check; defaults to base for 0x addresses, solana for Solana addresses, otherwise other (list check only)
`address`	Yes	Address to screen: 0x (EVM), base58 (Solana), or any other currency's address with chain=other

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the return content on match (entity, programs, listing date) vs not-found, the additional wallet/contract classification per chain, the 'not legal advice' caveat, and the payment/auth requirement ($0.005 USDC on Base via x402). These are the behavioral details an agent needs and cannot infer from schema.

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?

Dense and front-loaded with the core question and scope before the return/payment details. Slightly long with parenthetical chain lists and 'and others', but every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

For a no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly complete: it explains match/not-found return semantics, the classification add-on, and cost. Minor gap is no explicit signaling of failure/error behavior or rate limits, but coverage is strong.

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 baseline is 3. The description's mention of supported chains duplicates the chain enum documentation, but adds no format/syntax detail beyond what the schema already states for address and chain defaults.

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?

Opens with a specific question and verb+resource: screens a crypto address against the OFAC SDN digital currency list. Clearly distinct from sibling wallet/contract/balance tools, so an agent knows this is the sanctions check, not a profile lookup.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it (sanctions screening of an address, per-chain wallet/contract classification) and which chains are supported. Does not explicitly compare against related tools like token_risk_check or prepayment_safety_check, so no exclusions/alternatives are stated.

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

All Agent Data API 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?