Agent Data API

sanctions_name_search

Screens a person, company, vessel or aircraft name against the OFAC SDN and non-SDN lists, the UN Security Council consolidated list and the UK Sanctions List (about 27,000 entries with aliases). Fuzzy matching ignores word order, accents, punctuation and legal forms. Each match: 0-100 score, list, listed name, type, programs, aliases, birth date, nationality. 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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "sanctions_name_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Name to screen (Vladimir Putin, Banco Nacional de Cuba)
`type`	No	Only match this kind of entry
`lists`	No	Only these lists, comma-separated: ofac, un, uk (default all)
`minScore`	No	Lowest match score to return, 50-100 (default 85)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses fuzzy-matching behavior (ignores word order, accents, punctuation, legal forms), approximate corpus size (~27,000 entries with aliases), the per-match return fields, a 'not legal advice' disclaimer, and — critically — the $0.005 USDC on Base x402 payment requirement. It stops short of stating behavior on zero matches, error states, or latency.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and coverage, then matching behavior, then return shape, then cost/disclaimer. Nothing is redundant and the paid-call warning is placed where an agent will not miss it.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (score, list, listed name, type, programs, aliases, birth date, nationality). Combined with the cost disclosure, an agent has enough to decide and invoke correctly; zero-match behavior is the only meaningful omission.

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 every parameter including defaults (minScore 85, lists=all) is already documented. The description adds domain context that informs the `name` parameter (fuzzy tolerance, alias coverage) and clarifies the 0-100 score scale, but adds nothing about type/lists/minScore semantics beyond the schema.

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 — screens a person, company, vessel or aircraft name — and enumerates the exact watchlists (OFAC SDN/non-SDN, UN consolidated, UK Sanctions List). This makes it clearly distinguishable from the address-based siblings address_sanctions_screen and address_sanctions_exposure without consulting their schemas.

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?

The subject matter (name vs. address) implies the sibling split, but the description never explicitly says when to prefer this over address_sanctions_screen or address_sanctions_exposure. Usage is inferable rather than instructed.

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?