Queries live Google OSV.dev vulnerability intelligence for any PyPI, npm, Go, or Rust crate and r.
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one is a read-only billing/ledger check and the other performs the actual vulnerability scan. The only friction is that both are described in terms of the same payment/trial-quota machinery, which the docs cross-reference repeatedly, but an agent can still pick correctly.
Both names use snake_case with a verb_noun structure (get_agent_wallet_status, scan_package_cve_advisories). The pattern is consistent and readable, though the domain nouns are long and the verb choice (get vs scan) is not templated the way a full CRUD set would be.
Two tools is thin for a server whose stated purpose is package CVE scanning; only one tool actually scans, while the other is auxiliary billing infrastructure. It is defensible for a single narrow capability, but feels under-scoped by the rubric's 1-2 tool guidance.
The scan tool covers CVE, GHSA, and patched-version lookup for one package at a time, which is the core need, but there is no batch scanning, ecosystem/dependency-tree coverage, or advisory drill-down. The wallet tool is complete for its purpose, so the gap is on the scanning side.
Inspect an agent's account ledger: remaining free trial calls (out of 5), prepaid USD balance, cumulative spend, total API calls, and total LLM tokens saved. WHEN TO USE: Call before a batch of paid tool executions or after completing a Stripe or USDC top-up to confirm your balance. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do not use to process web content, execute marketplace tools, or submit payments; use the other tools on this server for execution. PARAMETER INTERACTIONS: Omit agent_id to inspect the default trial account derived from your client IP, or pass your explicit agent_id or agd_pass_ session key to check a specific funded wallet. Free and read-only: never charges a fee or consumes a free trial call. Example: get_agent_wallet_status(agent_id='example')
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | No | Optional Agent ID or agd_pass_ session key to inspect. Omit to check the default wallet derived from your client IP. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | No | Structured tool output payload. |
| status | Yes | Execution status ('ok' or 'payment_required'). |
| roi_proof | No | Token compression and cost-savings verification metrics. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it never charges a fee or consumes a free trial call, and the default wallet is derived from the caller's client IP. It does not discuss rate limits or caching, but the cost/free-trial guarantee is meaningful behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded with the ledger contents, then structured WHEN TO USE / WHEN NOT TO USE / PARAMETER INTERACTIONS / Example. The labeled sections make it scannable, though the repetition of the read-only guarantee and the worked example add a little bulk.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return-value detail is optional, yet the description still names the key fields. With a single optional parameter, no nested objects, and annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly further by naming the agd_pass_ session-key form and framing the two modes as an interaction (omit for IP-derived trial account vs. pass explicit agent_id/session key for a funded wallet), which aids selection even though the schema states the omit behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (inspect) and resource (agent's account ledger) and enumerates exactly what is returned: trial calls out of 5, prepaid USD balance, cumulative spend, total API calls, tokens saved. This clearly separates it from the sibling web-content tools (distill_webpage, extract_structured_data, recon_webpage_skeleton), which operate on webpages rather than wallet state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit WHEN TO USE (before paid tool batches, after a Stripe or USDC top-up) and WHEN NOT TO USE (not for processing web content, executing marketplace tools, or submitting payments). The exclusion clause routes the agent back to the other server tools for execution, so the alternative is named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Queries live Google OSV.dev vulnerability intelligence for any PyPI, npm, Go, or Rust crate and returns active CVEs, GHSA advisories, and patched versions. WHEN TO USE: Call scan_package_cve_advisories when your task requires deterministic cve-intel analysis for package; use get_agent_wallet_status to check your remaining free trial quota or prepaid balance. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do not use for unrelated domains or binary media. PARAMETER INTERACTIONS: Pass the target package as a non-empty string; omit agent_id and tx_hash during your 5 free trial calls, or supply agent_id (agd_pass_...) / tx_hash for paid execution. Read-only and idempotent; results are cached for 1 hour (<5ms cache hit). $0.015 per call. Pricing: the first 5 calls per agent_id are free and failed calls are never charged. After 5 calls, the tool returns a payment-required quote (not a fatal error) with a $2 Stripe top-up link and Base/Solana USDC addresses; complete payment, then retry with your agd_pass_ key in agent_id or pass tx_hash. Example: scan_package_cve_advisories(package='example')
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| package | Yes | Package identifier in 'Ecosystem:name' or 'name' format (e.g. 'PyPI:requests', 'npm:lodash', 'Go:golang.org/x/net', 'crates.io:hyper'). | |
| tx_hash | No | Optional on-chain Base Mainnet (0x...) or Solana SPL USDC transaction hash. Omit unless settling an individual call directly on-chain instead of using an agd_pass_ key in agent_id. | |
| agent_id | No | Optional agent identifier or prepaid agd_pass_ session key. Omit during your 5 free trial calls to use an ID automatically derived from your client IP, or pass your agd_pass_ key after topping up. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | No | Structured tool output payload. |
| status | Yes | Execution status ('ok' or 'payment_required'). |
| roi_proof | No | Token compression and cost-savings verification metrics. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description goes well beyond them: 1-hour result caching with <5ms hits, $0.015 per call, first 5 calls free per agent_id, failed calls never charged, and the payment-required quote response with Stripe/Base/Solana settlement options. This is exactly the extra behavioral context annotations cannot carry.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Clearly front-loaded with purpose then WHEN TO USE / WHEN NOT / PARAMETER INTERACTIONS / pricing, and each block is useful. It is somewhat long and repeats the example already present in the schema's examples array, plus restates pricing details, so a small amount of redundancy prevents a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation; the description instead covers the non-obvious operational gaps an agent needs — auth modes, free-trial limits, cache behavior, and the non-fatal payment-required response. Complete for a three-parameter tool with a single sibling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by explaining the trial-vs-paid conditional for agent_id and tx_hash (omit during free trial, or pass agd_pass_/tx_hash when paying) and reiterating package as a non-empty string. It restates formats the schema already documents, keeping it short of a 5.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (queries) and resource (live Google OSV.dev vulnerability intelligence) plus the exact ecosystems (PyPI, npm, Go, Rust) and return content (CVEs, GHSA advisories, patched versions). It also distinguishes itself from its only sibling by naming get_agent_wallet_status as the quota/balance tool rather than a scan tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE sections, names the alternative sibling for quota checks, and specifies the free-trial vs paid execution path. Nothing about tool selection or execution mode is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
get_agent_wallet_statusscan_package_cve_advisoriesQueries live Google OSV.dev vulnerability intelligence for any PyPI, npm, Go, or Rust crate and re
Check npm, PyPI, Go and Maven packages or lockfiles against OSV.dev: CVEs, CVSS, fixed versions.
Look up CVEs, CISA KEV, EPSS and open-source package vulnerabilities, including malicious packages.
Scan packages and lockfiles (npm, PyPI, Go, Maven, Cargo, NuGet) for vulnerabilities and malware.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.