automaton

check_sanctions__token

Sanctions and risk facts for a token or crypto project by name and/or contract address. Price: $0.01 per call in USDC on Base (eip155:8453), paid with x402 in params._meta["x402/payment"]. HTTP: GET https://api.firstmention.uk/s/check-sanctions/token

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "check_sanctions__token"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`address`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedNov 6, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / address / description
```
Removed value: -"Crypto wallet address to screen"
```

removedInput schema / properties / domain

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Domain to look up RDAP registration facts",
-  "type": "string"
-}

removedInput schema / properties / name / description

Removed value: -"Company or entity name to screen"

removedInput schema / properties / threshold

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Match similarity threshold, default 0.85",
-  "maximum": 1,
-  "minimum": 0.5,
-  "type": "number"
-}

AddedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the crucial non-obvious behavior: a per-call price of $0.01 in USDC on Base, and that payment goes in params._meta['x402/payment']. That is the kind of detail an agent would otherwise get wrong on its first call. It does not describe what the returned risk facts contain, but payment mechanics are well covered.

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?

Three short sentences: purpose, payment requirement, endpoint. Purpose is front-loaded and nothing is redundant. Dense but every sentence carries information.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should say what 'risk facts' actually returns (sanctions match flag, risk score, list membership?), and it does not. Payment and endpoint details are complete, and parameter meaning is covered, but the return shape and sibling discrimination remain gaps for a screen/verdict-style tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% (both params are bare strings with no descriptions), so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'name' means the project/token name and 'address' means the contract address, and that either or both may be supplied. That is meaningful meaning added beyond the schema, though it stops short of format guidance (e.g. chain, address format).

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 and resource: sanctions and risk facts for a token or crypto project, keyed by name and address. It implicitly separates itself from check_sanctions__address (the address-oriented sibling), but does not explicitly name an alternative, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

'by name and/or contract address' implies context (at least one identifier), which matters because the schema marks both params optional. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance against check_sanctions__screen, __verdict, or token_dd__check/__verify, all of which overlap.

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

All automaton 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?