Hermes Plant

CashflowLens — DCF, IRR & cashflow returns

cashflowlens_analyze

Idempotent

CashflowLens (x402-paid, $0.20): deterministic NPV, IRR, XIRR, DCF valuation, MOIC/DPI/TVPI, and payback period from a cashflow series. Use for valuation and return analysis instead of letting the model estimate.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`dcf`	No	Optional DCF valuation inputs (projected FCFs, discount rate, terminal value, net debt, shares)
`nav`	No	Residual value, for TVPI
`payer`	No	Optional wallet/account identifier; stored only as a hash
`apiKey`	No	Free-tier / plan API key (hp_free_… or a pass key). Forwarded as X-API-Key so paid tools serve from your monthly quota with NO x402 wallet. Get a free key (250 calls/mo) at https://hermesplant.com/pricing.
`channel`	No	Discovery channel or source tag
`campaign`	No	Campaign tag for downstream telemetry
`xPayment`	No	Raw X-PAYMENT proof from an x402-compatible wallet/client
`actorType`	No	Caller type for analytics: agent, human, synthetic, system, or unknown
`cashflows`	Yes	Cashflows: numbers for periodic, or {amount,date} objects for dated XIRR. Outflows negative.
`synthetic`	No	Mark this paid retry as an internal test/probe for analytics exclusion
`discountRate`	No	Annual rate for NPV, e.g. 0.08
`periodsPerYear`	No	Periods per year to annualize a periodic IRR
`paymentSignature`	No	x402 payment proof to forward as PAYMENT-SIGNATURE and X-PAYMENT on retry
`paymentIdentifier`	No	Optional x402 payment identifier for idempotency/retry correlation

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	True when the upstream storefront call returned a 2xx response
`httpStatus`	Yes	Upstream HTTP status code
`paymentRequired`	No	True when the response is an x402 HTTP 402 payment challenge

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations (idempotentHint: true, readOnlyHint: false), the description adds valuable behavioral context: 'x402-paid, $0.20' and 'deterministic.' This informs the agent about cost and consistency, which annotations do not cover. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool name and cost, then lists the computed metrics, and ends with a usage directive. Every sentence delivers value with no repetition of schema or annotations.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (14 params, nested objects, output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and key behavioral aspects. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described. It lacks explicit limitations, but the high schema coverage compensates, making it complete enough for agent 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 14 parameters with descriptions (e.g., 'Cashflows: numbers for periodic, or {amount,date} objects for dated XIRR. Outflows negative.'). The main description adds little parameter-specific detail, but the schema already carries the burden, earning a baseline 3.

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 the tool's function: 'deterministic NPV, IRR, XIRR, DCF valuation, MOIC/DPI/TVPI, and payback period from a cashflow series.' It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource (cashflow series), and the listed metrics distinguish it from siblings like bond_analyze or options_price. The phrase 'instead of letting the model estimate' reinforces its unique role.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use for valuation and return analysis instead of letting the model estimate,' providing a clear usage context. While it doesn't name alternative tools or state when not to use it, the instruction is sufficient for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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

All Hermes Plant tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose. Financial tools (bond, cashflow, deal, options, portfolio, wallet, waterfall) each target a specific analysis type, email tools are batch vs single, and e-commerce tools are separate. No two tools could be easily confused.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a noun_verb pattern (e.g., bond_analyze, emailguard_validate), but there is some inconsistency: some use verb_noun (get_product, list_products) and brand names like cashflowlens_analyze break the pattern slightly. Overall, it is still readable and mostly predictable.

Tool Count4/5

With 19 tools spanning finance, email, security, and e-commerce, the count is slightly high but reasonable for a pay-per-use server offering diverse deterministic analytics. Each tool serves a distinct function, and the number is not overwhelming.

Completeness4/5

The set covers major financial analysis types, email validation, and basic e-commerce operations. Minor gaps (e.g., no tool for portfolio rebalancing or more advanced email features) exist, but the core advertised services are well-covered.

Resources

Need Help?