anchain-data-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

screen_ofac_address

Identify if a blockchain address is linked to OFAC-sanctioned entities, supporting sanctions screening and risk assessment.

Instructions

Check whether a blockchain address is associated with entities listed on the OFAC sanctions list.

Args: address: Blockchain address to screen (e.g. 1ECeZBxCVJ8Wm2JSN3Cyc6rge2gnvD3W5K)

Cost: 5 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": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "screen_ofac_address"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the cost of 5 credits, which is useful, but does not mention any other behaviors like read-only guarantees, response format, or rate limits. This is adequate but not rich.

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 succinct, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes cost information. The Args and Cost lines are well-formatted and add value without redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter screening tool, the description covers the core purpose, parameter, and cost. An output schema exists to document return values, so the lack of return format detail is acceptable. It does not mention any caveats about the OFAC list or edge cases, but these are not essential for a basic screening 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?

The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates by explaining the 'address' parameter and providing a concrete example. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema definition.

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 uses a specific verb 'Check whether' with a precise resource ('blockchain address') and target ('OFAC sanctions list'). This clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like screen_ip_address or screen_global_sanctions_address.

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 context is evident from the description, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as screen_global_sanctions_address. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the choice somewhat implicit.

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