Orkid Swap

AML Sanctions Screen

sv_aml

Read-only

Wallet-address sanctions screening: exact-match verdict from our self-hosted OFAC-SDN oracle plus additive entity-name matching across open sanctions lists. Fail-closed — returns verdict "unscreened" (isSanctioned null) when no layer answered, never a fabricated clean. Params: address (required), entity (optional name hint), chain (optional echo). Informational only — not compliance advice. Free with X-ORKID-API-Key or $0.05 USDC/call via x402.

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": "sv_aml"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`chain`	No	Optional chain hint echoed in the result
`entity`	No	Optional entity name for open-list name matching
`address`	Yes	Wallet address to screen (hex, base58, bech32, tron formats)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open-world), yet the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: fail-closed semantics, returning verdict 'unscreened' with isSanctioned null when no layer answered, and never a fabricated clean. It also discloses the auth/cost model (X-ORKID-API-Key or $0.05 USDC via x402), which no annotation or schema field conveys.

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 and dense: the core behavior, fail-closed guarantee, and pricing all appear early and each sentence carries information. The 'Params: address (required), entity (optional name hint), chain (optional echo)' clause is redundant against a fully documented schema and is the one piece of waste.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by explaining return semantics (isSanctioned null and the 'unscreened' verdict), the layered matching model, auth/pricing, and the informational disclaimer. For a single-required-param read tool, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains address formats, the entity name hint, and the chain echo. The description's 'Params:' line largely restates those fields; the only added meaning is that entity matching is 'additive' to the exact-match verdict rather than a filter, which is a modest increment over 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Wallet-address sanctions screening' with 'exact-match verdict from our self-hosted OFAC-SDN oracle plus additive entity-name matching across open sanctions lists.' The two-layer design (exact-match vs. name matching) is concrete enough that an agent can distinguish this from report-style siblings such as sv_aml_report.

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?

The scope of use is clear — screen a wallet address for sanctions hits — and a caveat is supplied ('Informational only — not compliance advice'). It does not, however, name or route to any alternative, notably the sibling sv_aml_report, so an agent gets context but no explicit when-not or alternative guidance.

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

All Orkid Swap 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?