Skip to main content
Glama

WaveGuard

by io.github.gpartin

waveguard_interaction_matrix

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compute pairwise interaction matrix and cluster decomposition for entities.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entitiesYes2+ entities to evaluate for pairwise interaction effects.
field_levelNoField representation level. Default 1 for interaction/phase features.
sensitivityNoAnomaly sensitivity multiplier (default: 1.0).
encoder_typeNoOptional encoder override. Omit to auto-detect.
training_contextYes2+ baseline context samples used for normalization.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description ('Compute') is consistent with these, but it adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as output details or any limitations.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no extraneous words. Every word earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and only the description, the tool is adequately defined for its purpose. However, more detail on the output (e.g., matrix structure, clustering method) would improve completeness. The annotations provide safety context, so the description carries a moderate burden.

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 documents all 5 parameters. The description adds only the high-level context of computing an interaction matrix, but does not elaborate on parameter usage or semantics beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Compute pairwise interaction matrix and cluster decomposition for entities.' This is specific about the action (compute) and the resource (interaction matrix, cluster decomposition), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like waveguard_compare or waveguard_cascade_risk.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The usage is only implied by the tool name and description, but explicit guidelines are missing.

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

All WaveGuard 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose. While tools like waveguard_scan and waveguard_scan_timeseries both detect anomalies, their descriptions clearly differentiate structured data from time-series data. Similarly, token risk, volume check, and price manipulation tools address separate aspects of token analysis, avoiding overlap.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow the consistent pattern 'waveguard_<descriptive_name>' in snake_case. The names are descriptive and predictable, making it easy to infer functionality from the name alone. No mixed conventions or vague names are present.

Tool Count4/5

19 tools is on the higher side but still appropriate given the broad domain of crypto analytics, anomaly detection, and market data. Each tool serves a specific purpose, and the count is justified by the comprehensive feature set. However, a few tools could potentially be merged without loss of clarity.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of functionalities: health check, market data fetching, fingerprinting, similarity comparison, anomaly detection (structured and time-series), risk assessment (token, price manipulation, volume, wallet), counterfactuals, and interaction matrices. Some minor gaps exist, such as missing data export or visualization tools, but core workflows are well-supported.

Resources