Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

automaton

by uk.firstmention.api
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

x402check__address

Screen an EVM wallet address against OFAC's designated crypto addresses and return on-chain facts: whether it appears on a sanctions list, plus its USDC balance and transaction count on Base. $0.01/call. 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/x402check/address

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": "x402check__address"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYesEVM wallet address (0x...)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / address / description
      Added value: +"EVM wallet address (0x...)"
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "address"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the critical operational detail: this is a paid call at $0.01 in USDC on Base (eip155:8453) settled via x402 in params._meta["x402/payment"]. That payment/auth requirement is exactly the kind of behavior an agent must know before invoking. It stops short of covering rate limits, failure modes, or the shape/meaning of a negative screening result.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The first sentence front-loads the purpose well, but the cost is stated twice — once as '$0.01/call' and again as a full 'Price: $0.01 per call in USDC on Base (eip155:8453)' sentence — which is redundant waste. The raw HTTP endpoint trailing the description is useful but could be folded into the payment sentence.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essentials: what is screened, what facts come back, what it costs, and how payment is supplied. The remaining gap is the exact response shape and how a partial result (e.g. balance unavailable) is represented, which matters somewhat given there is no output schema.

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 100% for the single address parameter, so the schema already carries the documentation burden. The description adds real meaning by establishing that the address is an EVM wallet on Base that will be checked against OFAC lists, and it surfaces the otherwise-undeclared payment payload in params._meta, which is not represented in the schema at all.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: screen an EVM wallet address against OFAC-designated crypto addresses, and enumerates the returned facts (sanctions hit, USDC balance, transaction count on Base). The purpose is unmistakable, but it never distinguishes itself from overlapping siblings such as check_sanctions__address, walletprofile__sanctions, or token_dd__wallet, so an agent still has to guess which screener to pick.

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 use case (address-level sanctions screening plus Base on-chain facts) is implied clearly, and the payment condition is spelled out, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many sibling screening tools. The agent knows what the tool is for but not why it should choose it over check_sanctions__address.

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

All automaton 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