Hermes Plant

WalletGuard — wallet AML risk

walletguard_score

Idempotent

WalletGuard (x402-paid, $0.10): deterministic wallet AML/compliance risk scorer. From caller-provided context (sanctions, exposures, labels, fund sources) returns a 0-100 risk score, level, and evidence-backed 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.
`labels`	No	Address labels, e.g. exchange:binance, contract:..., sanctions:...
`wallet`	Yes	Wallet address
`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
`exposures`	No	Signals e.g. mixer:tornado, sanctions:ofac
`synthetic`	No	Mark this paid retry as an internal test/probe for analytics exclusion
`transfers`	No	Optional transfer summaries (direction, value, counterparty, tags)
`sanctionsHits`	No	Sanctions / OFAC / blacklist hit identifiers
`fundingSources`	No	Optional fund-source breakdown (source, share 0-1, verified)
`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?

Beyond annotations (idempotent, not destructive), the description discloses a $0.10 x402 payment requirement, deterministic behavior, and evidence-backed findings. This adds meaningful behavioral context not captured in annotations, though it doesn't detail payment mechanics.

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 very concise, two sentences, with key info first (name, cost, function). No wasted words, and it front-loads the essential differentiators.

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 output schema exists and the schema documents all parameters, the description covers the essential input categories and return types. It doesn't elaborate on payment mechanics, but that's covered by parameter docs and the x402 mention, making it sufficient for a complex tool.

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 schema covers all 15 parameters with descriptions, so the description's mention of 'sanctions, exposures, labels, fund sources' adds minimal extra meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool as a deterministic wallet AML/compliance risk scorer returning a 0-100 score, level, and evidence-backed findings. It distinguishes from sibling tools like portfolioguard_score and mcp_risk_score by explicitly stating the wallet AML focus and caller-provided context inputs.

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 when wallet AML risk scoring is needed, noting inputs like sanctions, exposures, labels, and fund sources. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or mention any exclusions, so the guidance remains 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?