Checks a Solana address against sanctions and threat intelligence databases to identify compliance risks, while automatically negotiating and settling x402 micro-payments for access.
Inspect a Solana address against sanctions and threat intelligence databases. Automatically negotiates and settles micro-payments via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notably reveals a significant side effect—automatically negotiating and settling micro-payments via x402—which is non-obvious and critical for an agent to know. However, it does not mention potential failure modes or whether the address screening itself is read-only.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then a concise statement of the major side effect. There is no unnecessary filler; every word contributes to understanding the tool's function and behavior.
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?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core purpose and a major behavioral trait, but lacks details on return value, payment failure handling, and any prerequisites. It is adequate but not comprehensive, especially given the surprising payment side effect.
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?
The schema provides zero description coverage for the only parameter, 'address', and the description adds only the hint that it is a 'Solana address'. It does not specify the expected format, validation rules, or any constraints. For a single required parameter, this is insufficient.
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 clearly states the tool's action ('Inspect'), the target resource ('a Solana address'), and the purpose ('against sanctions and threat intelligence databases'). It is specific and distinct, even without sibling tools, making its function unambiguous.
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?
The description implicitly indicates use when screening a Solana address, but does not mention any alternatives or explicit conditions for when not to use it. Since no sibling tools are listed, this is adequate, though it lacks explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.