Skip to main content
Glama

Hermes Plant — Agent Commerce Assurance

by io.github.JesseGdotIO

Payment Policy — preflight an x402 payment

payment_policy_decide
Idempotent

Payment Policy Decision (x402-paid, $0.05): deterministic allow / deny / needs_review before your agent signs an x402 payment — checks resource binding, amount vs expected price, network, payTo, facilitator, replay readiness, PII leakage, and buyer spend limits, with evidence-backed findings. Loop it over every payment; pair with assurance_attest for a signed record.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNoBazaar/service tags for sensitive-category detection
assetNoPayment asset address
payToNoPayment recipient from the challenge
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.
methodNoHTTP method the agent intends to call
schemeNox402 payment scheme (exact expected)
channelNoDiscovery channel or source tag
networkNoPayment network, e.g. eip155:8453
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
syntheticNoMark this paid retry as an internal test/probe for analytics exclusion
amountUnitsNoRaw x402 amount units (USDC = 6 decimals)
buyerPolicyNoBuyer guardrails: maxUsdPerCall, allowedNetworks, allowedPayTo, allowedHosts, requireExactScheme, requireHttps, ...
resourceUrlYesAbsolute resource URL from the x402 challenge or Bazaar listing
serviceRiskNoOptional upstream service-risk result (e.g. from mcp_risk_score)
facilitatorUrlNoFacilitator URL used to settle
paymentSignatureNox402 payment proof to forward as PAYMENT-SIGNATURE and X-PAYMENT on retry
maxTimeoutSecondsNoChallenge timeout window
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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses cost ($0.05), determinism, and the specific checks (resource binding, replay readiness, PII leakage, spend limits) which go beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive). This adds substantial behavioral context without contradicting any annotation.

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?

Three sentences with the tool name and cost front-loaded, followed by the action and key checks. No filler or redundancy; every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a tool with 21 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, the description adequately covers the decision outcome, cost, usage context, and relationship to sibling tools. The output schema handles return values, so no relevant gap remains.

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 meaning by linking the checks to parameter categories (network, payTo, facilitator, buyerPolicy, etc.), which helps agents map inputs to decision logic.

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 uses a specific verb ('preflight'/'decide') and resource ('x402 payment'), explicitly stating the outcome (allow/deny/needs_review) and listing the checks performed. It distinguishes itself from siblings like assurance_attest by clarifying its preflight role.

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 instruction 'Loop it over every payment' provides explicit when-to-use guidance, and 'pair with assurance_attest for a signed record' names a complementary tool. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use conditions or alternatives.

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