Hermes Plant

PortfolioGuard — portfolio risk

portfolioguard_score

Idempotent

PortfolioGuard (x402-paid, $0.15): deterministic portfolio risk scoring from holdings — volatility, Sharpe, max drawdown, concentration (HHI), diversification, plus per-rule findings.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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
`holdings`	Yes	Positions with symbol, weight (0-1), optional returns[], sector
`xPayment`	No	Raw X-PAYMENT proof from an x402-compatible wallet/client
`actorType`	No	Caller type for analytics: agent, human, synthetic, system, or unknown
`synthetic`	No	Mark this paid retry as an internal test/probe for analytics exclusion
`riskFreeRate`	No	Optional risk-free rate for the Sharpe ratio (default 0)
`periodReturns`	No	Optional portfolio/market return series
`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

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing the x402 payment requirement and deterministic nature. It also lists the metrics returned. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) are not contradicted; the description aligns with idempotency via 'deterministic.' No negative side effects are described, but the payment aspect is a meaningful behavioral trait.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that names the tool, pricing, core behavior, and key metrics. It is front-loaded and every clause adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the main output and input expectation scorely well, but it does not mention optional parameters or the need for an apiKey unless a user has a free-tier key. The output schema exists, so return values are not required in the description. It is complete enough for a typical scoring tool, though slightly sparse on prerequisites.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description mentions 'from holdings' which loosely maps to the required holdings parameter. However, it does not add detail about the other 11 parameters such as riskFreeRate, periodReturns, or apiKey. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents all parameters clearly.

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 portfolio risk scoring from holdings' and enumerates specific metrics (volatility, Sharpe, max drawdown, concentration, diversification). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like walletguard_score or mcp_risk_score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context ('from holdings') and suggests it is for portfolio risk assessment, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. No alternative tool names are mentioned, so guidance is only implicit.

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?