WaveGuard

waveguard_cascade_risk

Read-onlyIdempotent

Estimate shock propagation and resilience from adjacency-linked entities.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`entities`	Yes	2+ entities/nodes participating in the cascade graph.
`field_level`	No	Field representation level. Default 1 for graph interaction dynamics.
`sensitivity`	No	Anomaly sensitivity multiplier (default: 1.0).
`encoder_type`	No	Optional encoder override. Omit to auto-detect.
`shock_indices`	Yes	Indices of initially shocked entities within the entities array.
`shock_strength`	No	Initial perturbation magnitude injected at shock indices.
`adjacency_matrix`	Yes	N×N weighted adjacency matrix describing link strengths between entities.
`training_context`	Yes	2+ baseline context samples used for normalization.

Schema Changelog

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

First observedJul 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the stated purpose, not contradicting annotations.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, delivering the core purpose without unnecessary detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns, such as resilience metrics or shock propagation outputs. For a tool with 8 parameters and no output documentation, this is a significant gap.

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 parameters are already documented. The tool description does not add additional semantic meaning or context for parameter usage beyond the schema, meeting the baseline.

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 verb 'Estimate' and the specific resource 'shock propagation and resilience from adjacency-linked entities', making the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like waveguard_instability or waveguard_health.

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, such as conditions that favor cascade risk estimation over other analytical tools in the family.

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

All WaveGuard tools Inspect

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

Need Help?