Skip to main content
Glama

Hermes Plant — Agent Commerce Assurance

by io.github.JesseGdotIO

CashflowLens — DCF, IRR & cashflow returns

cashflowlens_analyze
Idempotent

CashflowLens (x402-paid, $0.20): deterministic NPV, IRR, XIRR, DCF valuation, MOIC/DPI/TVPI, and payback period from a cashflow series. Use for valuation and return analysis instead of letting the model estimate.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dcfNoOptional DCF valuation inputs (projected FCFs, discount rate, terminal value, net debt, shares)
navNoResidual value, for TVPI
payerNoOptional wallet/account identifier; stored only as a hash
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
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
cashflowsYesCashflows: numbers for periodic, or {amount,date} objects for dated XIRR. Outflows negative.
syntheticNoMark this paid retry as an internal test/probe for analytics exclusion
discountRateNoAnnual rate for NPV, e.g. 0.08
periodsPerYearNoPeriods per year to annualize a periodic IRR
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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds meaningful context: it is x402-paid at $0.20, and it is deterministic. This discloses cost and result reliability, which is valuable beyond the structured fields.

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 just two sentences, front-loaded with the tool name and cost, then a dense list of capabilities. Every clause earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 rich input schema and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool computes, that it is paid, and that it is deterministic. It could have mentioned idempotency, but annotations already cover that.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains each parameter thoroughly. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but it also does not need to; it correctly references the cashflow series without duplicating schema information.

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 names a specific set of analytical outputs (NPV, IRR, XIRR, DCF, MOIC/DPI/TVPI, payback period) tied to a concrete resource (cashflow series). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by stating it is for valuation and return analysis rather than estimation.

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 explicitly says 'Use for valuation and return analysis instead of letting the model estimate,' which gives clear usage direction. It does not name sibling exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to know when to select it.

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