anchain-data-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_address_risk_score

Retrieve a blockchain address's risk score (0-100), risk level, category, and associated entity for risk assessment and compliance screening.

Instructions

Retrieve an address risk score (0-100), risk level (1-4), category, and associated entity.

Args: proto: Blockchain protocol (btc, eth, xlm, xmr, bnb, matic, avax, sol, trx, ada, dot, ltc, bch, algo, xrp) address: Blockchain address to query (e.g. 1ECeZBxCVJ8Wm2JSN3Cyc6rge2gnvD3W5K)

Cost: 10 credits

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": {
      "proto": "<proto>",
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "get_address_risk_score"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`proto`	Yes
`address`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost (10 credits) and the exact output range and types, which are useful behavioral details. It doesn't explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but the 'retrieve' verb implies it. It also doesn't describe error handling or rate limits.

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?

The description is two structured paragraphs with no wasted words. The main sentence is front-loaded, and the Args section provides parameter details in a clean format.

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?

Given the simple two-parameter schema and presence of an output schema, the description covers the core aspects: purpose, parameters, and cost. It does not go into edge cases or alternative use cases, but it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward query tool.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by listing all supported protocols for the proto parameter (btc, eth, xlm, xmr, etc.) and providing an example address for the address parameter. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare field names.

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?

The description clearly states 'Retrieve an address risk score (0-100), risk level (1-4), category, and associated entity,' which specifies the verb, resource, and return values. This distinguishes it from siblings like bulk_address_risk_score and get_address_label.

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 description provides clear context for what the tool does and the cost, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like bulk_address_risk_score or get_address_label. The single-address parameter implies a single query, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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