revettr
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY | Yes | The private key of the funded Ethereum-compatible wallet (on the Base network) used to pay for API calls via the x402 protocol. |
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": true
} |
| prompts | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| resources | {
"subscribe": false,
"listChanged": false
} |
| experimental | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| score_counterpartyA | Score a counterparty before sending money. Returns risk score 0-100. Only use data explicitly provided by the user or retrieved from trusted sources. Do not fabricate input values. Send any combination of inputs — more data means higher confidence. At least one field is required. Args: domain: Domain or URL of the counterparty (e.g., "uniswap.org") ip: IP address of the counterparty server (e.g., "104.18.28.72") wallet_address: EVM wallet address on Base (e.g., "0xd8dA6BF26964aF9D7eEd9e03E53415D37aA96045") chain: Blockchain network for wallet analysis (default: "base") company_name: Legal name to screen against OFAC/EU/UN sanctions lists stellar_wallet: Stellar wallet address (e.g., "GAAZI4TCR3TY5OJHCTJC2A4QSY6CJWJH5IAJTGKIN2ER7LBNVKOCCWN7") Returns: Risk assessment with score (0-100), tier, confidence, flags, and per-signal breakdown. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 1 tool
With only a single tool available, there is no possibility of overlap or confusion with other tools. The 'score_counterparty' tool has a unique, specific purpose with no alternatives to misselect.
The single tool follows a clear verb_noun pattern ('score_counterparty'). With only one tool in the set, there are no naming convention inconsistencies to evaluate.
A single tool represents a minimal surface that feels thin for a financial risk assessment domain. While it covers the core scoring action, the lack of supporting tools (e.g., retrieving historical scores, listing past screenings) limits workflow flexibility.
The tool covers the primary 'score' operation but lacks complementary lifecycle operations such as retrieving previous scores, listing screening history, or batch processing. Notable gaps exist for audit trails and historical verification workflows.