gapup-mcp

x402_payment_fraud_detector

Read-onlyIdempotent

Risk-focused tool that analyzes x402-USDC payment transactions for fraud patterns using on-chain forensics. Takes a transaction hash or wallet address as input and returns risk scores, suspicious indicators, and historical patterns. Designed for risk management teams to quickly assess payment legitimacy. Includes keywords: fraud detection, USDC risk, blockchain forensics, transaction monitoring. 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.
`walletAddress`	No
`includeHistory`	No
`amountThreshold`	No
`transactionHash`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`sources`	Yes
`warnings`	Yes
`riskScore`	Yes
`isSuspicious`	Yes
`sanctionsMatch`	No
`fraudIndicators`	No
`transactionHistory`	No

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, establishing safety. The description adds useful behavioral context by mentioning async usage to avoid timeout, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is adequately sized and front-loaded with the purpose, but includes a keyword list that adds noise without value. It could be more concise by removing redundant keywords.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, low coverage) and presence of an output schema, the description provides a high-level overview but lacks details on input parameters like includeHistory and amountThreshold. It is minimally viable but not fully complete for a nuanced tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With only 20% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'transaction hash or wallet address' but does not explain includeHistory, amountThreshold, or async (beyond a brief note). The description adds little meaning beyond the schema for most parameters.

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 it analyzes x402-USDC payment transactions for fraud patterns using on-chain forensics, and it takes a transaction hash or wallet address as input. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like fraud_detector or x402_payment_flow_analyzer.

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 mentions it's designed for risk management teams to assess payment legitimacy and advises using async to avoid timeout, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Usage is implied but not differentiated from siblings.

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?