sra-riskgate-mcp

check_address_sanctions

Screen EVM addresses against the bundled OFAC SDN snapshot before payments or approvals to identify listed, unlisted, and invalid addresses.

Instructions

Check addresses against the OFAC SDN list before dealing with them, for example before creating a payment.

Exact, offline match against the snapshot of OFAC's published Ethereum-format addresses bundled with
sra-riskgate (also valid for Base and other EVM chains). Returns which addresses are listed, which are
not, which are not valid EVM addresses, and the list's source and date. Do not pay or approve anything
involving a listed address; refer it to a human. "Not listed" only means the address is not in this
dated snapshot: it is not a compliance clearance, it does not trace funds or ownership, and addresses
added to the SDN list after the snapshot date are not included.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`addresses`	Yes	One or more EVM addresses (0x followed by 40 hex characters) to check, for example a counterparty or the payee named in an invoice. Up to 100.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.4.0Oct 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: exact offline match against a bundled dated snapshot, EVM/Base chain applicability, the three result buckets (listed, not listed, invalid), and the source/date returned. It also discloses critical limits — 'Not listed' is not a compliance clearance, no fund/ownership tracing, and post-snapshot additions are excluded.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the purpose and trigger before the mechanics and caveats. The three paragraphs are each doing work, though the limitation paragraph is dense and slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Covers what an agent needs to call it correctly and interpret results: scope, chain validity, snapshot basis, return categories, and the boundaries of what 'Not listed' means. An output schema exists, so return-value detail is a bonus rather than a requirement.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns above it by adding chain-scope semantics (Ethereum-format addresses also valid for Base and other EVM chains) that the schema does not convey. Only the 'up to 100' bound is left to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Check addresses against the OFAC SDN list') and an explicit scope ('before dealing with them, for example before creating a payment'). The sanctioned-address checking function is clearly distinct from the sibling payment-rule and payment-checking tools, even though siblings aren't named.

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?

Gives clear triggering context ('before dealing with them, for example before creating a payment') and an operational directive ('Do not pay or approve anything involving a listed address; refer it to a human'). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling check_* tools, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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

Deploy Server