Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

AgentFeed

by io.github.seekdaseek
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

OFAC wallet screen

get_sanctions_check
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use when an agent needs to screen a crypto wallet before paying or being paid. Returns an exact match of a Bitcoin, Ethereum, Tron, Solana or other address against the OFAC SDN list, with entry, program and list date. No match is not a clearance. Costs 0.008 USDC per call (x402, USDC on Solana, Base, Polygon, Arbitrum or Arc).

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": "get_sanctions_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYesa crypto address of any family: bitcoin, ethereum, tron, solana, xrp, litecoin and so on

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesthe get_sanctions_check payload; a real captured example is free at https://x402.ochinimus.app/api/sample/get_sanctions_check
toolYesthe tool that produced this payload

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / address / maxLength
      Added value: +130
    • addedInput schema / properties / address / minLength
      Added value: +14
    • addedInput schema / properties / address / pattern
      Added value: +"^\\s*[A-Za-z0-9:]{14,120}\\s*$"
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well past the annotations: it discloses that the result is an exact match with entry, program and list date, warns that 'no match is not a clearance' (a real semantic caveat), and states cost (0.008 USDC per call) plus the x402 payment rails and chains. Pricing and payment prerequisites are exactly the kind of thing annotations cannot convey.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger, then output shape, then the false-negative caveat, then pricing. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

Output schema exists, yet the description still sketches the return shape and flags the critical interpretation limit ('no match is not a clearance'). Combined with cost and payment-chain disclosure, an agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly.

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% and the single parameter already documents accepted address families, so the schema carries the load. The description restates supported chains (Bitcoin, Ethereum, Tron, Solana, other) and adds the 'exact match' interpretation, which is mild incremental value over the schema — baseline 3.

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+resource ('screen a crypto wallet') and the exact target of the check (OFAC SDN list), plus what a hit contains. It is clearly separable from nearby siblings like get_honeypot_check, get_sol_token_check and get_injection_check, which are different risk surfaces.

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?

'Use when an agent needs to screen a crypto wallet before paying or being paid' gives a concrete triggering context rather than a generic 'check sanctions'. It does not explicitly name a complementary or alternative tool, but the usage condition is clear enough to route correctly.

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

All AgentFeed 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