Skip to main content
Glama

Hermes Plant — Agent Commerce Assurance

by io.github.JesseGdotIO

DestructGuard — score command risk

score_destructguard_command
Idempotent

Score a command/action with the x402-paid DestructGuard service. Call get_x402_manifest first, verify the DestructGuard price and buyer policy, then retry the 402 challenge with an x402 payment signature.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cwdNoWorking directory or execution context
repoNoRepository or project context
actorNoAgent/tool requesting the action
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.
intentNoWhy the command is being requested
channelNoDiscovery channel or source tag
commandYesCommand or agent action to score
campaignNoCampaign tag for downstream telemetry
diffStatNoOptional git diff --stat or change summary
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
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

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the important context that this is an x402-paid service requiring payment and a prior manifest check, which is not captured by annotations. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, telemetry, or error behaviors beyond the payment flow.

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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second gives a compact three-step usage sequence. It is front-loaded, efficient, and free of filler.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. The description provides crucial integration context (call get_x402_manifest first, verify policy, retry with payment signature) that fits the broader workflow among siblings. However, it lacks guidance on when not to use this tool or how to handle payment failures, but the structured schema and sibling context make it reasonably complete.

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 all 15 parameters are documented with descriptions. The description itself adds a workflow hint about using the x402 payment signature, but does not explain each parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Thus it meets the baseline for high coverage but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 identifies the tool as scoring a command/action via the DestructGuard service, distinguishing it from generic scoring tools by referencing x402 payment and the specific DestructGuard brand. It also mentions the prerequisite call to get_x402_manifest, which further clarifies its unique 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?

It explicitly instructs to call get_x402_manifest first to verify price and buyer policy, then retry the 402 challenge with an x402 payment signature. This provides a clear workflow and prerequisite, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion scenarios.

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