Sanctions screening vs OFAC, EU and UK lists (UN via EU/UK). Fuzzy match. Paid per call via x402.
Scored across 1 tool
With only one tool, there is no possibility of misselection between tools, and the tool's purpose (name screening against OFAC/EU/UK lists) is stated unambiguously. The description clearly bounds what it does and does not cover (UN via EU/UK transposition).
The single tool follows a clear verb_noun snake_case convention (screen_sanctions) that would scale predictably if more tools were added. There is no mixing of conventions to penalize.
The server is intentionally narrow (one screening operation), so one tool is defensible, but the surface is thin — no batch/bulk screening, list metadata, or entity-lookup companion tools. This lands on the borderline '1-2 tools feels thin' band rather than a well-scoped multi-tool set.
Core screening across the major lists is covered with useful output detail (list, entry id, score, source, version date). However, batch screening of multiple names, retrieving full entry details by id, and checking list freshness/versions as separate operations are absent, creating some dead ends for higher-volume agent workflows.
International sanctions screening: fuzzy-matches a person or company name (optional country, date of birth) against OFAC SDN + Consolidated (US Treasury), the EU Consolidated Financial Sanctions List and the UK Sanctions List (FCDO); UN Security Council designations are covered through their EU/UK transposition. Returns matches with list, entry id, score, source link and list version date. Use when an agent must screen a customer, supplier or payee (person or company) against official sanctions lists (OFAC SDN + Consolidated, EU, UK; UN designations via EU/UK transposition) before onboarding, contracting or paying them. Screening aid, not legal advice. Terms: https://sanctions-screen-production.up.railway.app/terms Privacy: https://sanctions-screen-production.up.railway.app/privacy
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dob | No | Optional date of birth YYYY, YYYY-MM or YYYY-MM-DD | |
| name | Yes | Person or company name to screen | |
| type | No | Subject type filter (default any) | |
| country | No | Optional ISO2 code or country name | |
| min_score | No | Match threshold (default 0.88) | |
| payment_signature | No | x402 v2 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header value. Omit to receive payment requirements. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it names the exact lists queried, explains UN coverage via EU/UK transposition, and describes the returned match fields (list, entry id, score, source link, list version date). It does not disclose rate limits or that invocation requires an x402 payment (only the schema's payment_signature param hints at that).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The core purpose is front-loaded, but the covered-list enumeration is repeated nearly verbatim in the purpose and usage sentences, and the trailing terms/privacy URLs add bulk. It is longer than needed for the information conveyed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a scored-match lookup with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return shape and coverage caveats. The notable omission is any mention of the x402 payment flow, which the payment_signature parameter implies but the description never addresses.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the optional country and date-of-birth inputs but adds no syntax, scoring or threshold detail beyond what the schema already documents per-parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (fuzzy-matches a name) and resource (sanctions screening against OFAC SDN + Consolidated, EU Consolidated, UK Sanctions List), and clarifies how UN designations are reached. An agent immediately knows it screens personas/companies against official watchlists without opening the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Gives a clear use context: screen a customer, supplier or payee before onboarding, contracting or paying. It also bounds expectations with 'Screening aid, not legal advice.' There are no sibling tools to disambiguate against, so no exclusions are needed, but it stops short of stating when NOT to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
screen_sanctionsSanctions, PEP, watchlist, recall, business, and contract screening. Free tier, no auth required.
Screen a name or entity against OFAC SDN, the EU Consolidated list and the UK list.
Screen names against US, UN, EU, UK, Canadian and Swiss sanctions and export-control lists. Free.
Screen a name against OFAC's SDN and Consolidated Sanctions lists before a transaction.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
