Skip to main content
Glama

Hermes Plant — Agent Commerce Assurance

by io.github.JesseGdotIO

BondLens — bond & loan analytics

bond_analyze
Idempotent

BondLens (x402-paid, $0.25): deterministic fixed-income and loan analytics. Bond mode solves price<->yield-to-maturity, duration, and convexity; loan mode (send principal+annualRate+termMonths) returns an amortization schedule.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
payerNoOptional wallet/account identifier; stored only as a hash
priceNoBond price; supply to solve yield
yieldNoAnnual yield; supply to solve price
apiKeyNoFree-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.
channelNoDiscovery channel or source tag
periodsNoPeriods to maturity
campaignNoCampaign tag for downstream telemetry
xPaymentNoRaw X-PAYMENT proof from an x402-compatible wallet/client
actorTypeNoCaller type for analytics: agent, human, synthetic, system, or unknown
faceValueNoBond face value (default 1000)
frequencyNoCoupons per year (default 2)
principalNoLoan principal (selects loan mode)
syntheticNoMark this paid retry as an internal test/probe for analytics exclusion
annualRateNoLoan annual rate, e.g. 0.06
couponRateNoAnnual coupon rate, e.g. 0.05
termMonthsNoLoan term in months
paymentSignatureNox402 payment proof to forward as PAYMENT-SIGNATURE and X-PAYMENT on retry
paymentIdentifierNoOptional x402 payment identifier for idempotency/retry correlation

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesTrue when the upstream storefront call returned a 2xx response
httpStatusYesUpstream HTTP status code
paymentRequiredNoTrue when the response is an x402 HTTP 402 payment challenge

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate idempotent, non-destructive, but not read-only. The description adds that it is 'x402-paid, $0.25' and 'deterministic', disclosing the payment side effect and predictable calculation behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool name and payment requirement, then concise mode descriptions. No filler or redundant restatement of schema properties.

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?

Covers both modes, the payment mechanism, and key input requirements. Output schema and 100% schema coverage fill in the remaining details. Slight gap: it doesn't explicitly state that bond mode requires either price or yield, but the price<->yield notation implies it.

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

Parameters4/5

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 mode-selection semantics by specifying which parameter combination triggers loan mode, and implies price<->yield either/or usage for bond mode, which is not explicit in 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 purpose: deterministic fixed-income and loan analytics, with distinct bond mode (solving price/yield, duration, convexity) and loan mode (amortization schedule). This differentiates it from sibling tools like options_price or cashflowlens_analyze.

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?

It tells when to use bond mode vs loan mode by specifying required inputs (principal+annualRate+termMonths for loan mode). It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the mode-specific instructions provide clear usage context.

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

All Hermes Plant — Agent Commerce Assurance toolsInspect
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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes. Some overlap exists (e.g., dealanalyzer_analyze combines CashflowLens and WaterfallLens; action_safety_run includes DestructGuard evidence), but descriptions explicitly clarify scope so an agent can choose correctly.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming patterns are mixed: some verbs precede nouns (get_product, purchase_with_x402), others follow nouns (bond_analyze, portfolioguard_score), and some are multi-word (action_safety_quick_gate). This inconsistency makes tool selection less predictable.

Tool Count3/5

At 25 tools, the server is at the heavy end and spans diverse subdomains (safety, payments, financial analytics, storefront). While each tool serves a purpose, the broad scope makes it feel overloaded for a single server.

Completeness3/5

Core assurance workflows (safety, payment, verification) are covered, but gaps exist: no refund/cancellation tools, no attestation lookup, and no way to retrieve 30-day action-safety status records. Financial analytics also have limited coverage (no equities).

Resources