gapup-mcp

x402_payment_flow_analyzer

Read-onlyIdempotent

As a CTO, analyze USDC payment flows involving x402 addresses to assess counterparty risk, trace transaction paths, and evaluate regulatory exposure. Input a wallet address or transaction hash to receive risk scores, flow diagrams, and compliance flags from Chainalysis and TRM Labs public APIs. Ideal for due diligence, fraud detection, and compliance reporting. Pass async:true to avoid timeout.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`async`	No	If true, returns a job_id immediately (<200ms) instead of waiting for the result. Poll the result with job_result(job_id). Use for slow tools to avoid client timeouts.
`depth`	No	Hops to trace in payment flow
`txHash`	No	USDC transaction hash to trace
`address`	Yes	Ethereum wallet address to analyze
`includeRiskScore`	No	Include counterparty risk scoring

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`flowId`	No	Unique identifier for this payment flow analysis
`status`	Yes
`sources`	No
`warnings`	No
`riskScore`	No	Counterparty risk score (0-100)
`complianceFlags`	No
`exposureSummary`	No
`transactionPath`	No

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark readonly and idempotent. The description adds that it uses public APIs (Chainalysis, TRM Labs) and supports async mode. No contradiction.

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?

The description is concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. The 'As a CTO' framing is slightly unnecessary but not detrimental.

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 an output schema exists, the description adequately covers key inputs, outputs, and behavior. Mentions async option, which is important for timeouts.

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% so baseline is 3. The description adds value by highlighting address/txHash inputs and async option, but doesn't explain depth or includeRiskScore beyond schema defaults.

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 analyzes USDC payment flows for risk assessment, with specific outputs (risk scores, flow diagrams, compliance flags). It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., x402_payment_fraud_detector) by focusing on flow analysis and compliance.

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?

The description indicates use cases (due diligence, fraud detection, compliance reporting) and advises using async:true to avoid timeouts. It does not explicitly list when to avoid, but context is sufficient.

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

All gapup-mcp 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

C2.5/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

With 271 tools, many have overlapping purposes (e.g., multiple competitor intel tools, multiple financial modelers, multiple ESG auditors). Detailed descriptions help slightly, but the sheer volume creates confusion. Agents would struggle to select the right tool among many similar options.

Naming Consistency1/5

Tool names are wildly inconsistent: mix of English and French, snake_case and short phrases, some very generic (process, run, execute equivalents). No discernible naming convention (e.g., abm_architect vs. boundary_control vs. bp_narratif). This makes it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

271 tools is far beyond typical well-scoped servers (3-15). This indicates an unfocused, over-bloated tool surface. Even for a general business intelligence server, this number is excessive and violates the principle of each tool earning its place.

Completeness2/5

Despite the large count, coverage feels scattered. Some domains (e.g., content, competitive intel) have many tools, while others (e.g., supply chain, HR) have gaps. The set lacks a coherent scope; it seems like a dump of many separate tool collections rather than a complete, curated surface.

Resources

Need Help?