boo-x402-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

OFAC sanctions screen

wallet_sanctions

Screen any wallet address against OFAC sanctions lists for compliance before accepting funds. Pay-per-call billing via x402 on Base.

Instructions

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

PAID TOOL: up to $0.01 USDC per call (x402 on Base). 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 observedv1.0.0Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is paid ('up to $0.01 USDC per call'), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, list of matches), leaving a gap in transparency.

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 concise with three clearly separated pieces: purpose, usage guidance, and cost information. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, and cost. However, it omits the output format or behavior (e.g., what the tool returns), which is important for a paid tool to set expectations.

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?

The input schema has one parameter 'address' with a description 'Wallet address.' The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and no improvement is made.

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 'Screens a wallet address against OFAC sanctions lists' with a specific verb and resource. The use case 'Use for compliance before accepting funds from an address' adds context and distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which perform sanctions screening.

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 description provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use for compliance before accepting funds from an address.' It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but given the unique functionality, the guidance is clear and sufficient.

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