fraud-detection-risk-status
Provides account risk assessment by querying PostgreSQL for transaction histories and flagged transactions, returning risk scores, risk levels, flags by rule, and recent flagged transactions with explanations.
Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@fraud-detection-risk-statusWhat's the risk status for account 123456?"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
Real-Time Transaction Fraud Detection Pipeline
A local, four-stage pipeline that simulates a live transaction stream, flags anomalies with per-account stateful rules in Spark, explains each flag in plain English via an LLM, and exposes account risk status as an MCP tool. Runs entirely on Docker Compose — no GPU, no notebooks, no cloud dependency except the LLM call itself.
Built as a portfolio project to demonstrate the full loop: synthetic ground truth → streaming detection → measured precision/recall → tuning against real numbers → LLM enrichment → a queryable tool interface. Detector versions and evaluation-run IDs are persisted with every prediction, so benchmark reports cannot silently mix algorithms, cold-start traffic, or earlier experiments.
Architecture
generate_transactions.py (producer)
│ JSON events, keyed by account_id, ~5% deliberately anomalous
▼
Kafka topic: transactions
│
▼
fraud_detector.py (Spark Structured Streaming, applyInPandasWithState)
per-account rolling state → amount / geo / velocity rules
│
├────────────▶ Postgres: processed_transactions (every transaction)
└────────────▶ Postgres: flagged_transactions (rule(s) tripped)
▲ │
│ writes .explanation │ reads unexplained rows
│ ▼
└───── llm_explainer.py (NVIDIA NIM, meta/llama-3.1-70b-instruct)
risk_status_server.py (MCP server, stdio)
reads processed_transactions + flagged_transactions
│
▼
MCP client → get_account_risk_status(account_id)Every row in both Postgres tables carries the producer's injected_label (ground truth —
which anomaly, if any, was deliberately injected) alongside the detector's own flags. The
rule engine never reads that field; it exists purely so precision/recall per rule can be
computed after the fact.
Related MCP server: Full-MCP-QA
Quickstart
cp .env.example .env
docker compose up -d --build
python -m src.producer.generate_transactions --rate 8
# once some transactions are flagged
python -m src.explain.llm_explainer --limit 50
python -m src.mcp.risk_status_server # stdio transportCompose waits for Kafka and Postgres health checks, then starts the Spark job automatically. The checkpoint is stored in a named volume, so a container restart resumes from committed offsets instead of replaying the topic from scratch.
generate_transactions.py --injection-mode {random,borderline,straddle} controls how
impossible_travel anomalies are constructed — see "The geo finding" below for why this
matters and what each mode is for.
Detection rules (src/streaming/fraud_detector.py)
Per-account rolling state, maintained via applyInPandasWithState:
Rule | Trips when | Needs |
amount | amount > 5x the account's running historical average | ≥3 prior transactions |
geo | implied travel speed between consecutive transaction locations > 900 km/h | a previous transaction to compare against |
velocity | live 5-minute count >2 standard deviations above the account's completed-window baseline, plus a 1.2x ratio guard | ≥5 completed windows |
Velocity v2 maintains mean and variance online with Welford's algorithm. Its effective
standard deviation is conservatively floored at the Poisson expectation sqrt(mean), so
a few identical low-count windows cannot create an unstable or infinite z-score. The
baseline excludes the in-progress window—otherwise a burst would dilute its own signal.
Current v2 release result
The quality-gated run v2-release-20260901 processed 3,427 events: five normal history
windows for each of 500 run-isolated accounts, followed by a 75-second straddle benchmark.
The gate required at least 20 positive examples per rule and at least 0.50 precision and
recall; all three rules passed.
Rule | Positive examples | Precision | Recall | F1 | Precision 95% CI |
amount | 63 | 100.0% | 98.4% | 99.2% | 94.2–100% |
geo | 33 | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 89.6–100% |
velocity | 419 | 89.9% | 61.6% | 73.1% | 85.9–92.9% |
overall | 515 | 92.9% | 68.5% | 78.9% | 89.9–95.1% |
The report includes confusion matrices, Wilson intervals, the exact rule configuration,
and a velocity threshold sweep. See outputs/v2_release_metrics.json.
Risk scoring uses each rule's 95% precision lower bound, not the point estimate.
Historical v1 benchmark (20-minute soak, 500 accounts, 10,028 events)
These figures describe the retired ratio-to-mean velocity detector (v1), not the current
variance-aware detector. They are retained as an engineering audit trail and as the reason
v2 was built; they must not be presented as v2 performance.
Rule | Precision | Recall |
amount | 100% | 77% |
geo | 50% | 94% |
velocity | 26% | 28% |
overall (any rule) | 38% | 43% |
Why velocity v1 was replaced
Recall is high across the board (77-94%) except velocity. This isn't a tuning miss — it's swept:
Threshold (×baseline) | Precision | Recall |
1.2 | 20% | 46% |
1.4 | 23% | 36% |
1.6 (chosen) | 26% | 28% |
1.8 | 28% | 21% |
2.0 | 27% | 12% |
2.5 | 20% | 5% |
3.0 | 15% | 2% |
No v1 ratio threshold gets both good precision and good recall—precision tops out around 26-28% no matter where the line is drawn. Root cause: a 4-8 event injected burst only pushes an account's 5-minute window count to ~1.5x its own baseline on average (max observed 5x); normal (non-burst) windows already sit at ~1.0-1.1x baseline just from ordinary variance. The signal and the noise floor are too close together for a ratio-to-mean test to separate them cleanly. v2 implements the variance-aware statistical test identified by that audit. Its performance is published only after the versioned quality gate has sufficient samples.
The geo finding: is 94% recall real, or trivial?
The initial 94% geo recall was measured against --injection-mode random (the default) —
which picks any other country and lets implied speed fall wherever. Checking the actual
distribution of injected speeds revealed why that number wasn't meaningful on its own:
median 539,632 km/h, minimum (excluding first-transaction edge cases) 13,703 km/h — every
injected case was 15x to 100,000x+ past the 900 km/h threshold. Recall on cases that
extreme says nothing about calibration near the actual decision boundary.
Two follow-up injection modes make this testable:
--injection-mode borderline: targets 1,000-3,000 km/h (just above threshold, using the same haversine math as the detector) — 148/148 non-edge-case injections still caught, 100% recall. But this range is still safely on one side of 900, so 100% recall here is partly guaranteed by construction — a hard threshold can't miss a case unambiguously past it.--injection-mode straddle: targets 700-1,100 km/h, genuinely crossing 900 — some injected cases should be flagged, some shouldn't. This is the real test. Result, scored against each case's actual achieved speed (not just its label):n
Correct
Incorrect
Below 900 (should NOT flag)
80
80 unflagged
0 flagged
Above 900 (should flag)
60
60 caught
0 missed
100% precision, 100% recall, zero errors either direction, across an achieved-speed range of 699.6-1,091.2 km/h. The rule's boundary behavior is exact, not fuzzy — as expected for a hard
>900threshold, but worth confirming empirically since it also validates the producer's back-calculation and the detector's canonical shared haversine implementation agree with each other precisely.Scoring this same run against
injected_labelalone (the usual methodology) gives a misleading TP=60/FP=131/FN=80 — "43% recall." That's a scoring-convention artifact, not a rule failure: 80 of those "misses" are cases deliberately constructed below threshold, which the rule is correct to leave unflagged. The 131 FPs are a separate, already-known effect: the transaction immediately after an injected geo event — the account's next transaction back home — itself reads as a huge implied speed (near-zero elapsed time since the injected event), so it gets flagged too even though it isn't the labeled anomaly. A labeling artifact of chaining two real events, not a detector bug.
Explanations (src/explain/llm_explainer.py)
For each flagged transaction, calls NVIDIA NIM (meta/llama-3.1-70b-instruct) to generate a
one-sentence plain-English explanation grounded strictly in the rule(s) that fired and that
transaction's specific values — never raw guesswork. Confidence language is calibrated to
each rule's measured precision above: stated directly for amount, hedged for geo, hedged
strongly (and flagged as often-a-false-positive) for velocity. Writes back to
flagged_transactions.explanation; safe to re-run, only unexplained rows are processed.
python -m src.explain.llm_explainer --limit 50
python -m src.explain.llm_explainer --transaction-ids id1,id2Untrusted transaction fields are bounded and isolated inside explicit prompt-data tags. Generated text is accepted only when it is a single, non-Markdown sentence under 600 characters; invalid generations are retried rather than written to the database.
Two real bugs surfaced during testing:
Country-code hallucination. The model initially read location code
DEas the US state Delaware instead of Germany. Fixed by spelling out full country names in the prompt (DE (Germany)) instead of leaving 2-letter codes for the model to interpret — removes the ambiguity instead of hoping the model resolves it correctly.Unbounded hang on the NIM call. The
OpenAIclient had no request timeout, so the first call in a session could hang indefinitely with no exception raised — nothing to retry, just silence. Fixed with an explicit 30s client timeout, turning hangs into retryableAPITimeoutErrors. The free tier has been consistently slow enough during development that this fires on a large fraction of calls; the retry/backoff logic is handling real, not just theoretical, failures.
Risk status MCP server (src/mcp/risk_status_server.py)
Exposes one tool, get_account_risk_status(account_id), over stdio via the official MCP
Python SDK. Queries Postgres for that account's flagged-transaction history and returns:
risk_score— sum of conservative v2 precision lower bounds across the account's v2 flags (amount 0.9417, geo 0.8957, velocity 0.8586); the response explicitly returnsscoring_calibration: "v2-release-20260901-precision-ci95-lower"risk_level—none/low/medium/high, thresholded onrisk_scoreflags_by_rule,total_flags,total_processed_transactionsrecent_flags— up to the last 20 flagged transactions, each with its triggered rule(s), injected label (ground truth, for dev/testing), and LLM explanation where generated
python -m src.mcp.risk_status_server # stdio transportThe MCP boundary validates account IDs before querying Postgres, and all queries remain parameterized.
Delivery semantics and stall recovery
Idempotent sink: each micro-batch is written to a staging table and merged into Postgres on the stable
transaction_idprimary key. If Spark retries after a database commit but before checkpoint advancement, the replay cannot duplicate transactions.Durable checkpoint: Kafka offsets and state-store progress live in a named Docker volume.
Progress watchdog: a ten-second processing trigger creates a regular progress heartbeat. If no new heartbeat appears for
STREAM_STALL_TIMEOUT_SECONDS, the query is stopped and restarted from its checkpoint with bounded backoff.Schema ownership: the sink creates explicit tables, primary keys, constraints, and account/time indexes rather than relying on Spark's inferred schema.
The watchdog turns the previously silent Kafka/Spark stall into an observable and recoverable event. It mitigates the connector behavior; it does not claim to fix the upstream connector itself.
Reproducible evaluation
The checked-in evaluator derives rule-level and overall confusion matrices, precision,
recall, F1, and Wilson 95% confidence intervals directly from
processed_transactions. First run a benchmark with normal history preloaded for each
account; otherwise a short test measures cold-start behavior rather than steady state:
RUN_ID="v2-straddle-$(date -u +%Y%m%dT%H%M%SZ)"
python -m src.producer.generate_transactions \
--rate 8 --accounts 500 --anomaly-rate 0.12 --duration 180 \
--warmup-windows 5 --injection-mode straddle --run-id "$RUN_ID"
# after Spark consumes the run
python -m src.evaluation.evaluate_database \
--detector-version v2 --run-id "$RUN_ID" --fail-on-quality-gateIt scores geo straddle cases against achieved speed, not merely the injected label, so
deliberately below-threshold examples are not misreported as false negatives—either at
the geo-rule level or in overall metrics. The default release gate requires at least 20
positive examples per rule and at least 0.50 precision and recall. Reports include their
detector version, run ID, generation time, sample counts, metrics, intervals, and explicit
gate failures; the default output is outputs/latest_metrics.json.
The producer derives an account-ID namespace from each run ID, preventing Spark state from one experiment contaminating another. Travel injections also update the simulated account's current location, so the next normal event is not an unlabeled impossible return trip.
Engineering checks
pip install -r requirements-dev.txt
make check
docker compose config --quietThe unit suite covers strict rule boundaries, variance-aware velocity behavior, zero baselines, shared geospatial math, precision-weighted risk scoring, straddle and overall evaluation semantics, confidence intervals, quality gates, watchdog behavior, idempotent sink construction, URL validation, and LLM output guards. GitHub Actions runs linting, 85% coverage enforcement, Compose validation, and the Spark image build.
Historical v1 sample output
This payload is retained only to show the MCP response shape from the earlier soak run;
its score and explanation wording use the retired v1 calibration. Current v2 responses
also include detector_version and scoring_calibration and use the release weights above.
get_account_risk_status("acct_00434") — an account with all three rule types represented:
{
"account_id": "acct_00434",
"risk_score": 4.34,
"risk_level": "high",
"total_flags": 11,
"total_processed_transactions": 22,
"flags_by_rule": { "amount": 1, "geo": 2, "velocity": 9 },
"last_explanation": "This transaction may be part of an unusual pattern of activity, though this signal is unreliable and more often than not a false positive in testing, as the account had 13 transactions in the last 5 minutes in Australia, which is 2.2 times its average count per 5-minute window.",
"recent_flags": [
{
"transaction_id": "7e344246-b62d-48b3-8357-4fef8d6339a6",
"event_timestamp": "2026-08-04T02:24:09.174048",
"amount": 44.00,
"merchant": "Shell Gas",
"location": "AU",
"triggered_rules": ["velocity"],
"injected_label": null,
"explanation": "This transaction may be part of an unusual pattern of activity, though this signal is unreliable and more often than not a false positive in testing, as the account had 13 transactions in the last 5 minutes in Australia, which is 2.2 times its average count per 5-minute window."
},
{
"transaction_id": "c4fe2ea2-1290-43ba-b0a7-6416ebc45039",
"event_timestamp": "2026-08-04T02:23:43.020577",
"amount": 912.06,
"merchant": "Whole Foods",
"location": "AU",
"triggered_rules": ["velocity", "amount"],
"injected_label": "amount_spike",
"explanation": "The transaction of $912.06 at Whole Foods in Australia may be suspicious due to the account's unusually high transaction volume in the last 5 minutes, though this signal is unreliable and more often than not a false positive in testing, and it is also directly suspicious because the amount is extremely high compared to the account's historical average transaction amount."
},
{
"transaction_id": "1487c985-3a85-4d52-8cde-377f9c9813b1",
"event_timestamp": "2026-08-04T02:19:13.920274",
"amount": 48.24,
"merchant": "Uber",
"location": "AU",
"triggered_rules": ["geo"],
"injected_label": null,
"explanation": null
}
// ... 8 more, chronological. explanation is null where llm_explainer.py
// hasn't processed that row yet — it's a batch/backfill job, not run inline.
]
}The historical arithmetic shown in this payload must not be used for v2; current weights are versioned and derived from conservative bounds in the checked-in release report.
Verified over the real MCP stdio protocol (tool registration → initialize → call_tool),
not just a direct function call, via a scratch MCP client.
Known limitations
The Spark↔Kafka connector has intermittently stalled in the local Docker setup. The progress watchdog now detects and restarts it from a durable checkpoint, but the underlying connector behavior is not root-caused. A managed deployment should alert on restart count and Kafka consumer lag.
src/mcp/shares its name with the installedmcppackage. Always launch it as a module from the repository root (python -m src.mcp.risk_status_server) so the local package does not shadow the SDK.generate_transactions.pyaccount identities are deterministic (seeded by account index), not re-randomized per process start. An earlier version re-randomized on every run, which silently reassigned a given account's home country between producer invocations and manufactured spurious "impossible travel" between otherwise-unrelated runs — a real bug, not a design choice, caught while investigating an unexplained spike in geo false positives. Fixed; flagging in case older behavior is referenced elsewhere.
This server cannot be deployed
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
Check WooCommerce checkout-change risk using public evidence and privacy-safe store signals.
Sanctions screening, KYB, identifier validation, jurisdiction risk & secret scanning for AI agents
KYC, KYB, AML, wallet screening, transaction monitoring, and fraud workflows for AI agents.
Fraud and abuse detection for SaaS: investigate scored identities, triage escalations, tune rules.
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceAI-powered fraud detection and investigation platform that exposes tools for querying, scoring, and investigating financial applications using LangGraph, MLflow, and SQLite in-memory.-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceExposes the qa_agent_status tool that reports configured integrations and the latest QA metric for the Website QA Agent.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceProvides AI-native fraud scoring, risk intelligence, and compliance tools for AI agents processing payments across multiple rails.MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to operate a banking fraud detection system by providing tools for submitting transactions, reading alerts, checking risk, and freezing/unfreezing accounts, with fraud rules enforced in-database.-