Skip to main content
Glama
README.md
<!-- mcp-name: io.github.AlexanderLawson17/revettr-mcp -->
# Revettr

[![Glama MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AlexanderLawson17/revettr-python/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AlexanderLawson17/revettr-python)

Counterparty risk scoring for agentic commerce. One API call answers: **"Should this agent send money to this counterparty?"**

Revettr scores counterparties by analyzing domain intelligence, IP reputation, on-chain wallet history, and sanctions lists. It's designed for AI agents transacting via [x402](https://x402.org) on Base.

## Install

```bash
pip install revettr
```

## Quick Start

```python
from revettr import Revettr

client = Revettr()

# Score a counterparty — send whatever data you have
score = client.score(
    domain="uniswap.org",
    ip="104.18.28.72",
    wallet_address="0xd8dA6BF26964aF9D7eEd9e03E53415D37aA96045",
)

print(f"Score: {score.score}/100 ({score.tier})")
print(f"Confidence: {score.confidence}")
print(f"Flags: {score.flags}")

if score.tier == "critical":
    print("DO NOT TRANSACT")
```

## What Gets Scored

Send any combination of inputs. More data = higher confidence.

| Input | Signal Group | What It Checks |
|-------|-------------|----------------|
| `domain` | Domain Intelligence | WHOIS age, DNS config (MX, SPF, DMARC), SSL certificate |
| `ip` | IP Intelligence | Geolocation, VPN/proxy/Tor detection, datacenter vs residential |
| `wallet_address` | Wallet Analysis | Transaction count, wallet age, counterparty diversity, on-chain behavior |
| `company_name` | Sanctions Screening | OFAC SDN, EU consolidated, UN consolidated sanctions lists |

## Response

```json
{
  "score": 90,
  "tier": "low",
  "confidence": 0.75,
  "signals_checked": 3,
  "flags": [],
  "signal_scores": {
    "domain": {
      "score": 80,
      "flags": [],
      "available": true,
      "details": {
        "domain_age_days": 2673,
        "dns": {"has_mx": true, "has_spf": true, "has_dmarc": true}
      }
    },
    "ip": {
      "score": 100,
      "flags": [],
      "available": true,
      "details": {
        "country": "US",
        "asn_org": "Cloudflare, Inc.",
        "is_private": false
      }
    },
    "wallet": {
      "score": 100,
      "flags": [],
      "available": true,
      "details": {
        "blockchain": {"tx_count": 100, "unique_counterparties": 29},
        "onchain": {"nonce": 16, "eth_balance": 0.072}
      }
    }
  },
  "metadata": {
    "inputs_provided": ["domain", "ip", "wallet_address"],
    "latency_ms": 1185,
    "version": "0.1.0"
  }
}
```

## Score Tiers

| Score | Tier | Meaning |
|-------|------|---------|
| 80-100 | `low` | Counterparty appears legitimate |
| 60-79 | `medium` | Some signals warrant caution |
| 30-59 | `high` | Multiple risk indicators present |
| 0-29 | `critical` | Strong risk signals — do not transact |

A score of **0** means a hard match (e.g., exact sanctions hit). This overrides all other signals.

## Risk Flags

Flags tell you exactly what triggered a score reduction. They are grouped by signal category:

| Category | Examples | What It Covers |
|----------|----------|----------------|
| Domain | `domain_age_under_*`, `no_mx_records`, `ssl_*` | Domain age, DNS hygiene, SSL validity |
| IP | `tor_exit_node`, `known_vpn`, `high_risk_country_*` | Anonymization, geolocation risk |
| Wallet | `wallet_never_transacted`, `wallet_age_under_*` | On-chain history, activity patterns |
| Sanctions | `sanctions_exact_match`, `sanctions_high_confidence_match` | OFAC/EU/UN sanctions screening |

The full set of flags and their descriptions are returned in the API response. Flag names are stable and machine-readable.

## Usage Examples

### Wallet only (minimal)

```python
score = client.score(wallet_address="0xabc...")
```

### Domain + IP (web service check)

```python
score = client.score(domain="some-api.xyz", ip="185.220.101.42")
```

### Full check

```python
score = client.score(
    domain="merchant.com",
    ip="104.18.28.72",
    wallet_address="0xabc...",
    company_name="Merchant LLC",
)
```

### With x402 auto-payment

The client handles x402 payment automatically. You need a funded wallet:

```python
from revettr import Revettr

client = Revettr(
    wallet_private_key="0xYOUR_PRIVATE_KEY",  # Wallet that pays for the API call
)

# Client automatically handles the 402 → payment → retry flow
score = client.score(wallet_address="0xabc...")
```

> **Security**: Never hardcode private keys. Use environment variables or a secrets manager in production.

### With Virtuals Protocol (ACP)

Score seller agents before creating jobs on the [Agent Commerce Protocol](https://app.virtuals.io/acp):

```python
from revettr import Revettr

client = Revettr()
result = client.score(wallet_address=seller_wallet)
if result.score >= 60:
    # Safe to create ACP job
    job_id = chosen_offering.initiate_job(
        service_requirement={"task": "Analyze Q1 sales data"},
        evaluator_address=evaluator_address,
    )
```

See [examples/virtuals_acp_safe_buyer.py](examples/virtuals_acp_safe_buyer.py) for the full buyer agent flow.

## Safe Agent Payments

Drop-in replacement for x402 payments that automatically checks counterparty risk before sending money. If the counterparty scores below your threshold, the payment is blocked.

```python
from revettr import SafeX402Client, PaymentBlocked

async with SafeX402Client(
    wallet_private_key="0x...",
    min_score=60,    # Block "high" and "critical" risk
    on_fail="block", # Raise PaymentBlocked (default)
) as http:
    try:
        # Automatically scores the counterparty before paying
        response = await http.post("https://some-api.com/endpoint", json=data)
    except PaymentBlocked as e:
        print(f"Blocked: {e.url} scored {e.score}/100")
```

| `on_fail` | Behavior |
|-----------|----------|
| `"block"` (default) | Raise `PaymentBlocked` exception |
| `"warn"` | Log warning, proceed with payment |
| `"log"` | Silently log, proceed with payment |

## Pricing

| Tier | Price | What You Get |
|------|-------|-------------|
| Standard | $0.01 USDC | All available signals based on inputs provided |

Payment is via [x402](https://x402.org) protocol — USDC on Base network. No API keys, no accounts, no contracts.

## API Reference

### `POST /v1/score`

**Payment**: x402 — $0.01 USDC on Base per request

**Request body** (JSON):

| Field | Type | Required | Description |
|-------|------|----------|-------------|
| `domain` | string | No | Domain or URL |
| `ip` | string | No | IPv4 address |
| `wallet_address` | string | No | EVM address (0x...) |
| `chain` | string | No | Blockchain network (default: `base`) |
| `company_name` | string | No | Name to screen against sanctions |
| `email` | string | No | Email (future — not scored yet) |
| `amount` | float | No | Transaction amount in USD (context only) |

At least one of `domain`, `ip`, `wallet_address`, or `company_name` is required.

### `GET /health`

**Payment**: None (always free)

Returns API status and signal source availability.

## Direct HTTP (without SDK)

```bash
# Without payment (returns 402):
curl -X POST https://revettr.com/v1/score \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{"domain": "example.com"}'

# Returns HTTP 402 with payment-required header containing x402 payment terms
```

## Disclaimer

Revettr is an **informational tool**. It aggregates publicly available signals and returns a risk score. It is **not** a compliance certification, legal advice, or guarantee of counterparty legitimacy. You are responsible for your own transaction decisions.

## Built by

[L Squared Digital Holdings](https://revettr.com)

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Scored across 1 tool

Disambiguation5/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count3/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessUnresponsive