x402 Bazaar

sanctions

Read-onlyIdempotent

Is this address OFAC-sanctioned? — Use before an agent pays, receives from or onboards a wallet: an OFAC sanctions / AML screen of the address against the US Treasury SDN list of sanctioned digital-currency addresses. Direct-address match with a GO/STOP receipt, for compliance agents and payment bots that must screen counterparties before transacting. For many addresses at once use sanctions-batch; for a person or company name use sanctions-name. No API key. Required input: address. Priced $0.02 per call over x402 on Base; send a prepaid x-credit-token header for unlimited calls, or get 1 free call/day per tool. No API key required.

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": "sanctions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	Address to screen

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No	The result payload. Shape is service-specific; every field is documented in the tool description.
`service`	No	The service id that answered.
`checkedAt`	No	ISO-8601 timestamp of when the underlying reads were taken.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedAug 31, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / data / description

Previous value: -"The result payload. Shape is service-specific; every field is documented in the service description above."New value: +"The result payload. Shape is service-specific; every field is documented in the tool description."

Changed1 schema field changedAug 31, 2026
- removedOutput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[
-  "data"
-]
```

Changed1 schema field changedAug 30, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "checkedAt": {
+      "description": "ISO-8601 timestamp of when the underlying reads were taken.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "data": {
+      "description": "The result payload. Shape is service-specific; every field is documented in the service description above.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "service": {
+      "description": "The service id that answered.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "data"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedJul 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior; the description adds genuinely new operational context: pricing ($0.02/call over x402 on Base), the x-credit-token prepaid path, a 1 free call/day tier, and no-API-key auth. These are the practical facts an agent needs to actually invoke the paid tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core question, then usage, then alternatives, then payment details — a good ordering. It loses a point for redundancy: 'No API key' appears near the start and again as 'No API key required' at the end.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema already covering return values, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: purpose, routing, prerequisites, auth, and cost model.

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 is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates 'Required input: address' without adding address format, chain, or validation 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?

Opens with a specific question-shaped verb+resource ('Is this address OFAC-sanctioned?') and immediately specifies the screen target (US Treasury SDN list) and the output form (GO/STOP receipt). It is clearly distinguishable from sanctions_batch and sanctions_name, which it names.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit when-to-use ('before an agent pays, receives from or onboards a wallet') plus explicit routing to alternatives for batch addresses (sanctions_batch) and entity names (sanctions_name). Nothing is left to inference.

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

All x402 Bazaar 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?