boo-mpp-mcp

OFAC sanctions screen

wallet_sanctions

Screen a wallet address against OFAC sanctions to ensure compliance before accepting funds.

Instructions

Screens a wallet address against OFAC sanctions lists. Use for compliance before accepting funds.

PAID TOOL: up to $0.01 USDC.e per call (MPP on Tempo). Paid automatically from your configured wallet.

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": "wallet_sanctions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	Wallet address.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so description must disclose behavior. It adds important cost context (up to $0.01 per call, automatic payment) but does not mention response format or any other behavioral details. Some burden is met but gaps remain.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second gives cost/payment warning. Front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Simple tool with full schema parameter coverage; description adds cost and usage context. Without an output schema, slightly more return-value detail would improve completeness, but the current description is adequate for selection and invocation.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter with a basic 'Wallet address' description. Tool description adds no additional format or chain details, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'screens' and resource 'wallet address against OFAC sanctions lists', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like wallet_risk or token_rugcheck. Title reinforces purpose.

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?

States 'Use for compliance before accepting funds', providing clear context on when to invoke. Does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, so not a 5.

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