PHION RWA

rwa_sanctions_screening_evidence

Evidence-based literal subject screening against observed official US/EU sanctions sources; 0.015 USDC. Not legal clearance or wallet attribution.

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "subject": {
        "name": "Example Entity",
        "identifiers": [
          "registration-id"
        ]
      },
      "jurisdictions": [
        "US",
        "EU"
      ]
    },
    "name": "rwa_sanctions_screening_evidence"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`subject`	Yes
`source_urls`	No
`jurisdictions`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 11, 2026

addedInput schema / examples

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "jurisdictions": [
+      "US",
+      "EU"
+    ],
+    "subject": {
+      "identifiers": [
+        "registration-id"
+      ],
+      "name": "Example Entity"
+    }
+  }
+]

First observedSep 24, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. It discloses matching semantics ('literal' vs fuzzy), the source scope (observed official US/EU sources), and the cost (0.015 USDC), which is real added context. It says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or result confidence/format.

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?

A single tight sentence: action, scope, cost, and disclaimers all front-loaded with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage with a nested object means the agent lacks both return-value and input-shape understanding. For this complexity level the description should do substantially more.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 3 parameters, including a nested 'subject' object. The description only obliquely gestures at 'subject' and 'US/EU', leaving source_urls and the subject.identifiers structure entirely undocumented, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 action (literal subject screening) and resource (official US/EU sanctions sources), and the qualifier 'evidence-based' adds a meaningful distinction. It does not name a sibling to contrast against (e.g. rwa_compliance), so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

'Not legal clearance or wallet attribution' is a useful boundary that tells the agent when this tool is NOT the right fit. However, there is no positive guidance on when to prefer it over rwa_compliance or rwa_asset_due_diligence, so usage is only implied.

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

All PHION RWA 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?