screen_addressesScreens up to 50 addresses in one call to identify payment risks, with a paid batch mode for bulk checks.
Same screen for up to 50 addresses in one call. Paid mode uses https://api.youraitools.co/payguard/v1/batch ($0.01 USDC per batch).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| addresses | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, closed-world), and the description adds pricing context not present in structured fields ($0.01 USDC per batch, paid endpoint URL). However, it introduces "paid mode" without explaining what the non-paid mode is, whether payment is required, or how failure/refund behaves — leaving a real ambiguity around cost behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the batching scope and then the cost detail; nothing is redundant. The opening "Same screen" is too terse to be self-contained, which keeps it from a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and minimal annotations, the description should clarify address format, free-vs-paid mode semantics, and what comes back (matches, risk scores, per-address results). It covers cost and batch size but leaves those gaps, so it is only adequate for a single-parameter screening tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the semantics. It confirms the 50-address cap (already encoded as maxItems) but says nothing about required address format — hex, chain-specific, checksummed, etc. — which is critical for a screening call.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with "Same screen," which only identifies the operation by reference to the sibling screen_address rather than stating the verb and resource itself. "For up to 50 addresses in one call" does differentiate it as the batch variant, but an agent must consult the title or sibling to learn that this is an OFAC SDN screen.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
"in one call" hints that this is the batch option, but the description never explicitly says to use this instead of screen_address when multiple addresses are needed, nor when not to use it. There is no guidance about prerequisites, free vs paid mode selection, or failure handling for oversized inputs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.