AgentX x402 Services (paid MCP tools)

get_youtube_search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Keyless YouTube search with optional video or channel filter. GET /x402/youtube-search?q= — $0.01.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "q": "<q>"
    },
    "name": "get_youtube_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	Yes	Search query
`limit`	No	1-20
`filter`	No	video or channel
`payment`	No	Optional. Your x402 payment proof for this exact call — the PAYMENT-SIGNATURE value produced by settling this route's 402 challenge (USDC on Base or Solana), or an MPP 'Authorization: Payment ...' value. Omit on a first call: the tool then returns the live 402 challenge to pay against. This server relays your proof upstream and retries; it never creates or settles payments itself.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuinely new behavioral facts — no API key required and a $0.01 charge — which matter for an agent deciding whether to call a paid endpoint. However it omits the 402-challenge/payment-retry flow that an agent will actually hit, leaving that entirely to the schema.

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?

Front-loaded single sentence plus a terse route/cost fragment; nothing is wasted. It is close to telegraphic — the "GET /x402/youtube-search?q= — $0.01" fragment is compressed to the point of being cryptic, costing a little readability.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say something about what comes back (video/channel result objects), and it does not. It does cover identity, cost, and endpoint, and the payment mechanics are fully handled in the schema, so it is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about response shape for a search tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters including the intricate payment proof are already documented. The description only echoes the filter values ("video or channel") and implies the query parameter, adding no format, constraint, or interaction detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Keyless YouTube search with optional video or channel filter" names a specific verb (search) and resource (YouTube), plus the scope modifier (keyless, optional filter). It is distinguishable from siblings like get_youtube_video and get_youtube_channel, though the description never explicitly names those alternatives to draw the line.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not guidance: nothing says to reach for this over get_youtube_video/get_youtube_channel/get_youtube_transcript, or what query shapes work best. Usage is only implied by the word "search"; the pricing note describes cost, not selection criteria.

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

All AgentX x402 Services (paid MCP tools) tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?