Hermes Plant

WaterfallLens — LP/GP distribution waterfall

waterfall_distribute

Idempotent

WaterfallLens (x402-paid, $0.30): deterministic LP/GP distribution waterfall (return of capital, preferred, GP catch-up, carried-interest split) with the exact split, per-tier breakdown, LP MOIC, and effective carry %.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`payer`	No	Optional wallet/account identifier; stored only as a hash
`years`	No	Holding period for preferred accrual
`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
`synthetic`	No	Mark this paid retry as an internal test/probe for analytics exclusion
`compounding`	No	Preferred-return accrual basis: 'simple' or 'compounded' (default compounded)
`distributable`	Yes	Total cash to distribute
`preferredRate`	No	Annual preferred rate, e.g. 0.08
`carryPercentage`	No	GP carry, e.g. 0.20 (default 0.20)
`paymentSignature`	No	x402 payment proof to forward as PAYMENT-SIGNATURE and X-PAYMENT on retry
`catchUpPercentage`	No	GP catch-up share, 1.0 = full (default)
`paymentIdentifier`	No	Optional x402 payment identifier for idempotency/retry correlation
`contributedCapital`	Yes	Total LP capital to return in tier 1
`preferredReturnAmount`	No	Explicit preferred return amount

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?

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'deterministic' (reinforcing idempotency) and discloses cost ('x402-paid, $0.30') and the output metrics computed. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 includes the product name, cost, deterministic nature, calculation components, and outputs. Every clause adds value with no wasted words, and the most important identifiers are front-loaded.

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 (17 parameters, 2 required) and the existence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It captures purpose, calculation logic, cost, and key outputs, while the schema handles parameter details. It adequately prepares an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 17 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not explain individual parameters but outlines the calculation stages that correspond to parameters (e.g., contributedCapital, preferredReturnAmount). It adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('distribution waterfall') and resource (WaterfallLens), and details the exact calculation stages (return of capital, preferred, GP catch-up, carried-interest split). It also lists key outputs (LP MOIC, effective carry %), making it easily distinguishable from sibling tools like cashflowlens_analyze or dealanalyzer_analyze.

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 for LP/GP distribution waterfall calculations but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It provides no exclusions or recommendations for choosing this tool over other financial analysis tools, leaving usage context 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?