Skip to main content
Glama

numguard

MCP registry identity — mcp-name: io.github.ipezygj/numguard

The verification layer for the agent economy — an agent-callable primitive that checks a number before it gets asserted, and hands back a signed receipt proving it was checked.

Agents now produce an explosion of numbers: eval scores, A/B results, "the agent improved 12%", benchmark rankings, backtest Sharpes. The scarce resource isn't the number — it's trust in the number. numguard is the tool an agent calls mid-task to ask "does this survive a second look?", and to attach a portable, tamper-evident receipt so the answer travels with the claim.

Built on evalgate for the shared eval statistics; adds the pieces agents specifically need — a Deflated Sharpe Ratio for backtests, judge calibration, signed receipts, and metering an agent can actually pay (prepaid credits + x402 pay-per-call). Exposed as an MCP server, so any agent can call it.

New here?How to verify a backtest is real (Deflated Sharpe in Python): the practical guide to catching an overfit or leaking backtest, with runnable code. See it workproof gallery: 8 real numbers run through the real checks, 3 survive and 5 are flagged, each with a receipt you can verify offline. Don't trust it — verify it. Wire it into an agent in one lineINTEGRATE.md: the local reflex, an MCP config, and LangChain / CrewAI tool wrappers.


The tools

MCP tool

What an agent asks it

verify_backtest

Is this strategy's Sharpe real, or the luckiest of the many I tried? (Deflated Sharpe Ratio)

verify_backtest_series

Run the full integrity battery on my actual returns — look-ahead, autocorrelation, regime, tail, overfitting.

verify_subset_win

Does "we lead on subset X" survive correcting for how many subsets I tested?

verify_model_gap

Is the gap between these two models bigger than the test set can resolve?

verify_judge_bias

Is my judge's preference real, or just longer / first / same-family?

calibrate_judge

Is the LLM judge I trust actually calibrated against ground truth?

audit_leaderboard

Is #1 on this leaderboard statistically real? (rank confidence intervals)

triage (start here)

I don't know which check I need — here's what I'm about to do or assert, route me. (front door across numguard + agent-guard + evalgate, free)

verify_execution

Don't trust my reported Sharpe — RE-DERIVE it from my positions on committed price data, and catch a number those decisions don't produce.

reconcile_backtest

Did my backtest's claimed Sharpe survive contact with LIVE returns? (HELD / DECAYED / BROKEN)

open_commitment / report_returns

Hold my strategy accountable over time — stream live returns, tell me when the edge breaks. (O(1)/obs)

open_precommitment / report_precommit

Prove my live claim wasn't cherry-picked after the fact — pre-register it BEFORE the outcome; report on a hash-chained, tamper-evident timeline anyone can audit free (verify_chain).

issue_receipt / commitment_receipt

Give me a signed, portable proof this number / track record was checked.

verify_receipt

Was the number this other agent handed me actually checked, and by whom? (free, issuer-agnostic)

scan_for_receipts

A peer just sent me a message — find and verify any receipt inside it before I act. (free — the receiver half of the loop)

receipt_spec / why / pricing / balance

the open receipt standard · what numguard does that nothing else does · prices · balance

On-chain and agent-verification tools — the same discipline applied to things that live on a chain rather than in a spreadsheet. Listed because a tool an agent cannot find is a tool it cannot call.

tool

the question it answers

verify_agent

This wallet claims a track record — fetch its own public on-chain trades and re-derive the result.

audit_addresses

Run that same verdict across an explicit list of addresses. (only the addresses given)

verify_vault

Re-derive a vault's APY from its own Deposit/Withdraw events, instead of quoting its page.

verify_backing

Re-derive backing = reserves held / token supply, from the chain.

verify_guard_trace

Recompute a behavioural-guard verdict over an agent's action trace, and sign it.

anchor_receipt / attest_onchain

Put a receipt's digest on Base — immutable, timestamped, publicly checkable (EAS attestation).

check_attestation

Look up a numguard credential on-chain. (free, no key, no gas)

erc8004_feedback

Build the ERC-8004 giveFeedback call from a verdict, so reputation carries the evidence. (free)

get_precommit / commitment_status

The immutable registration entry, and the current HELD / DECAYED / BROKEN verdict. (free)

What sets it apart (why): computing the number yourself, or a lesser checker, stops at "is it significant?" numguard also holds it accountable to live reality over time, signs a portable tamper-evident proof, and lets anyone verify any proof for free — the trust layer, not just a calculator.

Related MCP server: alphaassay/mcp

For agent traders: the Deflated Sharpe Ratio

The number that kills a backtest is the same one that kills a benchmark score: you tried many, and you reported the best. In finance the rigorous correction is the Deflated Sharpe Ratio (Bailey & López de Prado) — given how many variants you tested, what Sharpe would the luckiest zero-skill strategy have shown, and do you beat it after adjusting for sample length and non-normal returns?

from numguard import deflated_sharpe

deflated_sharpe(sr=0.12, T=250, n_trials=100)
# SR=0.120 over T=250, 100 trials tested; deflation bar=0.160; DSR=0.263
# -> does NOT survive deflation.  (PSR-vs-0=0.970 — it LOOKS significant on a single test.)

deflated_sharpe(sr=0.15, T=1000, n_trials=1)
# DSR=1.000 -> SURVIVES. A real edge over a long sample.

The contrast is the whole point: a single-test probability of 0.97 ("significant!") collapses to a deflated 0.26 ("noise") once you account for the 100 strategies that were tried. An agent optimizing over strategies should call this before it trusts — or publishes — a backtest.

The full integrity battery — what a Deflated Sharpe still misses

DSR catches best-of-N. It does not catch same-bar look-ahead, autocorrelation inflating the Sharpe, regime dependence, tail fantasy, or one-lucky-epoch fragility. verify_backtest_series runs the whole battery on the actual returns series and returns a risk level (none/medium/high/critical) plus the checks that flagged:

check

catches

leakage

same-bar look-ahead (position "predicts" the bar it's in) — critical

pbo

overfitting beyond n_trials (Prob. of Backtest Overfitting) — critical

hac_sharpe

autocorrelation / stale marks inflating the Sharpe (Newey–West)

regime_stability

cherry-picked window (per-block Sharpe + CUSUM break)

bootstrap_stability

edge lives in one epoch (block-bootstrap Sharpe CI)

drawdown

tail/smoothing fantasy (Calmar / CVaR / expected-vs-realized max-DD)

permutation, conditional_hetero, cost_capacity, bh_fdr

order structure, vol clustering, fill realism, multiple testing

The tell (python examples/catch_a_fake_backtest.py): a look-ahead strategy shows an annualised Sharpe of +20 and a Deflated Sharpe that survives — yet the battery flags it critical on leakage (same-bar corr 0.79 vs next-bar 0.05). The DSR waves the fiction through; the battery does not.

verify_backtest_series(api_key="…", returns=[...], positions=[...], asset_returns=[...])
# {"risk": "critical", "survives": false, "flags": ["leakage", ...], "checks": {...}}

Signed receipts (the part that compounds)

from numguard import verify_claim, issue_receipt, verify_receipt, keypair
priv, pub = keypair()
result  = verify_claim("backtest", sr=0.12, T=250, n_trials=100)
receipt = issue_receipt(result, priv, pub)     # Ed25519-signed
verify_receipt(receipt)                          # True — anyone can verify with the public key alone

Attach the receipt to your output. A downstream agent (or human) can confirm — without your keys — that the claim and its verdict weren't altered and that numguard issued them. As receipts circulate, "a number without a receipt" starts to read like "a number nobody checked."

Buying is easy for an agent

Two rails, both built so an agent can decide and pay in-loop, no human clicking:

  1. Prepaid credits + API key — a human tops up once; the agent spends per call. Generous free tier (25 calls/key) so the agent feels the value first, then a machine-readable price list. Insufficient balance returns a structured payment_required, not an error.

  2. x402 pay-per-call — the agent hits a tool, gets an HTTP-402 with a machine-readable price + pay-to address, pays USDC from its wallet, retries with proof, gets the result. The protocol layer is here; settlement is pluggable (inject a facilitator/RPC verifier for production).

from numguard import x402
x402.require_payment("verify_backtest", price_usd=0.03, pay_to="0x…")
# -> {"status": 402, "accepts": [{"scheme":"exact","network":"base","asset":"USDC", ...}]}

Run the MCP server

pip install numguard
python -m numguard.mcp_server        # stdio MCP server; point your agent/host at it

Then an agent calls e.g. verify_backtest(api_key="…", sr=0.12, T=250, n_trials=100) and gets a verdict it can quote and a receipt it can attach.

Deploy it (hosted, paid, discoverable)

1. Host the paid HTTP API (x402 per-call):

docker build -t numguard . && docker run -p 8080:8080 \
  -e NUMGUARD_PAYTO=0xYOURWALLET \
  -e NUMGUARD_FACILITATOR_URL=https://your-x402-facilitator \
  numguard

Or one-click on Render: New → Blueprint → this repo (render.yaml included); set NUMGUARD_PAYTO + NUMGUARD_FACILITATOR_URL in the dashboard. With NUMGUARD_PAYTO unset the API runs free (dev mode) so you can test before wiring a wallet. Endpoints: POST /verify_backtest, /verify_model_gap, … ; GET /pricing.

The x402 flow, end to end: the agent POSTs → gets 402 with an accepts block (price, payTo, network) → signs a USDC payment → retries with an X-PAYMENT header → numguard verifies + settles it through the facilitator to your wallet → returns the result. Settlement is the real x402 /verify + /settle handshake (numguard.x402.facilitator_verifier) — facilitator-agnostic: point NUMGUARD_FACILITATOR_URL at any x402 facilitator. Options:

  • Testnet (free, no account): https://x402.org/facilitator with NUMGUARD_NETWORK=base-sepolia — test the whole flow with test-USDC first.

  • Mainnet, self-sovereign: self-host x402-rs (open-source, no third party) and point at your own URL.

  • Mainnet, hosted (non-Coinbase): thirdweb or PayAI facilitators (Base) — set NUMGUARD_FACILITATOR_AUTH if the facilitator needs a key.

2. Serve the MCP server over HTTP (for remote MCP hosts): uvicorn numguard.mcp_server:app (or NUMGUARD_TRANSPORT=streamable-http python -m numguard.mcp_server).

3. Get discovered: server.json (official MCP registry) and smithery.yaml (Smithery) ship in the repo; connect the repo at those registries so agents can find the server. GitHub topics: mcp, mcp-server, x402.

Design notes

  • Statistics are shared with evalgate (zero-dependency); numguard adds the backtest, receipt, metering, and MCP layers on top — it does not re-implement the core checks.

  • Pure-math numerics where possible; cryptography only for Ed25519 receipts (HMAC fallback without it).

  • Every verdict is derived from a computed statistic, never asserted — the same discipline as the book behind it, Measured, Not Believed (leanpub.com/measurednotbelieved).

MIT.

Install Server
A
license - permissive license
B
quality
B
maintenance

Maintenance

Maintainers
Response time
Release cycle
Releases (12mo)
Commit activity

Related MCP Servers

  • A
    license
    A
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    The accountability layer for AI agents — a named human's signed yes before an agent does anything irreversible (payment, record change, deploy), then an offline-verifiable Trust Receipt. Apache-2.0, formally verified.
    Last updated
    17
    6
    Apache 2.0
  • A
    license
    A
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    Most trading signals are noise. AlphaAssay puts them on trial — deflated Sharpe, out-of-sample, leakage forensics — and returns signed pass/fail verdicts anyone can verify. Methodology audits, not investment advice.
    Last updated
    17
    1
    Apache 2.0
  • A
    license
    -
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    The verifiable risk engine for autonomous agents: deterministic, self-verifying financial calculations that an agent can delegate and prove. It covers liquidation and funding, position sizing and risk of ruin, options Greeks and margin, LP divergence, treasury concentration and depeg, execution quality checks, plus intelligence on options, DeFi, prediction markets, and transaction safety analysis.
    Last updated
    2
    1
    MIT
  • A
    license
    A
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    Eval-integrity statistics for AI benchmark claims — multiple-testing correction, power/MDE for model gaps, judge-bias and leaderboard-rank checks. Catches a benchmark number that won't survive a second look.
    Last updated
    9
    1
    MIT

View all related MCP servers

Related MCP Connectors

  • Deterministic signed verification of numeric & financial claims for AI agents & spreadsheets.

  • AI-agent verifier: verdict committed before the outcome graded against it; /review, /ledger.

  • Deterministic fact verification for AI agents — checksums & curated data, not guesses.

View all MCP Connectors

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ipezygj/numguard'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server