topup_balance
Top up agent balance. rail: usdc (x402) or rub (YooKassa). Returns pay_url to complete payment.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rail | No | usdc | |
| No | agent@domains-for-ai.app | ||
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| amount_minor | Yes |
x402 Market Intelligence + Russian Web Access
by com.ruscrape
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description discloses return value (pay_url) and payment rails, but lacks details on authorization, side effects, or failure modes.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then key details. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple operation, explains purpose and return value, but lacks parameter details for email and amount_minor, and no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%. Description only adds meaning to 'rail' (usdc or rub), ignoring email, agent_id, and amount_minor parameters.
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?
Description clearly states 'Top up agent balance' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like check_balance which is read-only.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are largely distinct, but fetch_ru and fetch_web overlap as the former is a specialization of the latter; descriptions clarify the difference, so agents should select correctly. Other tools (check_domain vs register_ru_domain, x402_*) have clear boundaries.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (check_balance, fetch_web, topup_balance), but the x402_* group uses a domain prefix rather than a verb. This is consistent within its subgroup but deviates from the overall pattern.
Tool Count5/5
12 tools cover a broad but well-scoped set of capabilities (fetching, RU-specific access, domains, code execution, balance, x402 services). Each tool has a distinct role and the count is within the ideal range.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers the main workflows: fetching with country/JS options, RU proxy/domain services, balance management, code execution, and x402 discovery/verification. Minor gaps like domain deletion or a generic service list are not critical for the stated purpose.