Skip to main content
Glama

x402-endpoints

by io.github.digitalweb33333-creator

cve_lookup

Security vulnerability lookup (CVE) against the official NVD (NIST) database — by exact CVE id or by keyword/product. Returns description, CVSS severity, CWE weaknesses and references. Worldwide. Price: $0.01 per call (x402 payment, USDC on Base mainnet). Security vulnerability (CVE) lookup against the official NVD (NIST) database. By exact CVE id or by keyword/product. Returns description, CVSS score and severity, CWE weaknesses, status and references. For devsecops, SBOM and dependency-audit agents. Input: CVE id (e.g. CVE-2021-44228) or keyword (e.g. log4j).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results for keyword search [1-20], e.g. 10
cve_idNoExact CVE id, e.g. 'CVE-2021-44228'
keywordNoKeyword / product search, e.g. 'log4j'

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that it queries the official NVD database, returns description, CVSS, CWE, references, and mentions worldwide access and price. Lacks details on error handling or rate limits, but adequate for a lookup tool.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is somewhat repetitive, with the first two paragraphs duplicating the same information. Could be more concise by removing redundancy.

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?

The description lists return fields (description, CVSS, CWE, references, status) but does not explain structure or handle potential conflicts between cve_id and keyword parameters. Absence of output schema suggests need for more clarity.

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 describes all three parameters (limit, cve_id, keyword) with examples. The description adds examples and clarifies input format, but does not add significant meaning beyond schema (100% coverage).

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 it is a security vulnerability lookup against the official NVD database, specifying exact CVE ID or keyword/product search. It differentiates from siblings (which are diverse) by its focus on CVEs.

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?

The description targets devsecops, SBOM, and dependency-audit agents, and mentions the pricing model. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it.

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

All x402-endpoints toolsInspect
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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes with detailed descriptions. However, there are clusters of similar tools (e.g., multiple token safety and pre-trade verdict tools for different chains) that could cause confusion, though descriptions help differentiate.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent pattern of lowercase snake_case with descriptive prefixes (e.g., agent_, crypto_, x402_). No mixing of conventions or ambiguous names.

Tool Count2/5

52 tools is excessive for a single server, covering a wide range of unrelated domains (crypto, legal, climate, transport, etc.). This overwhelms an agent and suggests a lack of focus.

Completeness2/5

The server lacks a coherent domain; it offers one-off tools across many areas but misses fundamental operations for any specific domain (e.g., no company registry for US, no order placement for crypto). Significant gaps exist.

Resources