SALT19 Agent Utility Grid

Dependency Go No Go

dependency-go-no-go

Idempotent

Dependency approval decision for coding agents: decide whether an npm dependency or package is safe to install or adopt and return GO, WARN, or BLOCK using vulnerabilities, security, license, maintenance, deprecation, and package metadata. Price: $0.25 via x402. Generate one _salt19_operation_id per intended purchase, preserve it across retries, and add _x402_payment_signature after satisfying the challenge. A stable _salt19_operation_id is required and makes semantic retries at-most-once. _salt19_operation_id is recommended but optional for standard x402 compatibility.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`package`	Yes	Input parameter "package" for the dependency-go-no-go tool.
`version`	No	Input parameter "version" for the dependency-go-no-go tool.
`_salt19_handoff_id`	No	Optional SALT19 authorization handoff correlation. Preserve the same value across challenge, local signing, and paid retry.
`_salt19_operation_id`	No	Optional but recommended semantic purchase identifier. Generate once per intended purchase and preserve it across challenge, payment, timeout recovery, and retries for the strongest at-most-once contract. Standard x402 clients may omit it.
`_x402_payment_signature`	No	Optional x402 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE proof. Omit on the first call to receive the payment challenge; include after satisfying that challenge.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tool`	No	Canonical SALT19 tool identifier when the result is tool-specific.
`status`	No	SALT19 execution, payment, availability, or verification state.
`response`	No	Tool-specific structured response payload when execution completes.
`operation_id`	No	Client-controlled semantic purchase identifier when applicable.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses the paid x402 flow, the need to generate and preserve _salt19_operation_id, the at-most-once retry semantics, and the requirement to include _x402_payment_signature after the challenge. This is substantial behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded and the payment instructions are relevant, but there is slight redundancy around _salt19_operation_id being required versus recommended/optional. Overall, the description is dense and useful without being bloated.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a paid decision tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential operational flow: what the tool decides, what factors it considers, what the verdicts are, how payment works, and how to make retries idempotent. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

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 for the payment-related parameters: how _salt19_operation_id should be generated and preserved, and when _x402_payment_signature should be omitted versus included. This justifies a score above baseline, though package/version semantics remain mostly delegated to the schema.

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 names a concrete job—decide whether an npm dependency is safe to install or adopt—and specifies the exact return vocabulary (GO, WARN, or BLOCK). It also lists the evaluation criteria (vulnerabilities, license, maintenance, etc.), which clearly distinguishes this from related package/decision tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a clear use context: coding agents evaluating npm dependencies or packages for installation/adoption. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to sibling tools like dependency-upgrade-go-no-go, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All SALT19 Agent Utility Grid 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

B3.4/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools occupy the same decision space: agent-decision-preflight, dependency-go-no-go, repo-adoption-go-no-go, github-repo-preflight, and npm-package-intel all target install/adopt GO/WARN/BLOCK decisions with overlapping scope. Discovery tools like find-salt19-tool and salt19-pricing also blur together. Descriptions are detailed, but the boundaries between these tiers are not obvious enough for reliable agent selection.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names consistently use lowercase hyphenated tokens and domain prefixes, which gives some predictability. However, styles are mixed: some tools are verb-led (find-, report-, verify-), while others are noun-headed (github-repo-facts, salt19-pricing, nws-active-alerts), and product-tier suffixes like -preflight, -facts, -intel, and -go-no-go are applied inconsistently. The naming is readable but does not follow a single clear pattern.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well above the range where a toolset remains easy to navigate, even for a broadly scoped utility grid. The count includes multiple free routing/telemetry tools plus many paid data and decision tools, making the surface feel heavy. A more consolidated tiered design would reduce selection burden.

Completeness4/5

The server covers a wide range of claimed capabilities: live state/facts for Base, GitHub, npm, SEC, NWS, USGS, and URL; bounded decisions for dependencies, repos, plans, code changes, and commerce; plus x402 payment support and receipt verification. Minor gaps exist around actually executing payments or settlements, but that seems intentionally out of scope for a non-custodial utility grid.

Resources

Need Help?