Skip to main content
Glama

Hermes Plant — Agent Commerce Assurance

by io.github.JesseGdotIO

WalletGuard — wallet AML risk

walletguard_score
Idempotent

WalletGuard (x402-paid, $0.10): deterministic wallet AML/compliance risk scorer. From caller-provided context (sanctions, exposures, labels, fund sources) returns a 0-100 risk score, level, and evidence-backed findings.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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.
labelsNoAddress labels, e.g. exchange:binance, contract:..., sanctions:...
walletYesWallet address
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
exposuresNoSignals e.g. mixer:tornado, sanctions:ofac
syntheticNoMark this paid retry as an internal test/probe for analytics exclusion
transfersNoOptional transfer summaries (direction, value, counterparty, tags)
sanctionsHitsNoSanctions / OFAC / blacklist hit identifiers
fundingSourcesNoOptional fund-source breakdown (source, share 0-1, verified)
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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations (e.g., deterministic, x402-paid, reliance on caller-provided evidence). However, the claim 'x402-paid' is misleading because the schema documents an apiKey alternative that works without an x402 wallet, undermining the accuracy of the payment disclosure. Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, which aligns with 'deterministic', but the payment description is incomplete.

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 concise: two sentences that front-load the tool name, cost, and core function. There is no wasted wording, and it efficiently conveys the essential behavior and output.

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?

While an output schema exists and the description mentions the key outputs, it omits the alternative payment method (API key) that the schema supports. Given the tool's complexity (15 parameters, payment options), the description is incomplete and could mislead an agent into thinking x402 payment is mandatory. The core purpose is clear, but the payment ambiguity prevents a higher score.

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 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds value by grouping key context categories (sanctions, exposures, labels, fund sources), which helps identify important inputs, but it does not provide additional detail beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 applies.

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 a deterministic wallet AML/compliance risk scorer with a specific verb and resource. It specifies the output (0-100 risk score, level, evidence-backed findings), distinguishing it from sibling tools like portfolioguard_score (portfolio risk) and mcp_risk_score (generic risk).

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 indicates the tool should be used when a wallet AML risk score is needed from caller-provided context, naming the key evidence types (sanctions, exposures, labels, fund sources). It does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or provide when-not guidance, so it lacks the full explicit comparison expected for a 5.

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