Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

arXiv & OpenAlex Academic Search MCP

by io.github.ralf9090
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

compliance_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Institutional AML, Sanctions (OFAC), Phishing, Mixer, and Malicious Counterparty Compliance Screening ($0.05 USDC). Screens any 0x EVM address against GoPlus Security (Base + Ethereum) and 4-chain RPC footprint before autonomous agents execute transfers.

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": "compliance_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYes0x... 40-hex EVM wallet or contract address to screen for AML/sanctions
x_api_keyNoOptional ak_live_... 30-day Prepaid API Pass key to unlock the full unmasked dataset
payment_signatureNoOptional x402 v2/v1 Base64 or JSON EIP-3009 USDC payment signature to unlock the full unmasked dataset directly via MCP

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With annotations already covering readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, the description adds real behavioral value: the $0.05 USDC cost, the specific screening providers and chain coverage, and the pre-transfer timing. It does not clarify the masked-vs-unmasked default result behavior, which is left to the parameter descriptions.

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?

Two dense sentences with the core capability and cost front-loaded and no wasted filler. Slightly marketing-toned ('Institutional') but efficient and well-ordered.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers inputs, but with no output schema the description never indicates what a screening returns (score, flag, report) or how masked vs unmasked output differs. For a paid, gating tool that is a 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 the schema already documents address, x_api_key, and payment_signature, including the masked/unmasked unlock semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (screens) and resource (0x EVM address) plus the concrete checks performed (AML, OFAC sanctions, phishing, mixer, malicious counterparty) and the data sources (GoPlus Security Base + Ethereum, 4-chain RPC). It is clearly distinguishable in intent from security_audit or wallet_profiler, though it never names a sibling to sharpen the boundary.

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 phrase 'before autonomous agents execute transfers' implies the trigger context, which is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternative guidance and no when-not conditions. Usage must be inferred from the pre-transfer framing.

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

All arXiv & OpenAlex Academic Search MCP toolsInspect
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