Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

YRUZ x402 tools

by io.github.xzntexe
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

YRUZ DependencyPulse Package (0.003 USDC)

deps_get_package
Read-onlyIdempotent

One package from npm, PyPI or Packagist: latest version, description, declared licence, repository, homepage, deprecation or yanked status, version count, first and last publish date, declared dependencies of the latest release, and the OSV advisories that match the latest version. With source links, retrieval time and the changes YRUZ observed since its previous look. Price: 0.003 USDC per call, paid with x402 (USDC on Base or Solana, no account, no API key); invalid input is refused before payment and a failed run is never charged. Without a payment the tool returns the x402 PaymentRequired. How to call it: get_example {"tool":"deps_get_package"}. Same tool over HTTP: https://yruz.one/api/deps/package?ecosystem=npm&name=express

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "deps_get_package"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYespackage name (required), e.g. express, @types/node, requests, monolog/monolog
ecosystemNonpm (default), pypi or composer

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / ecosystem / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "npm"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / name / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "express"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the price (0.003 USDC via x402 on Base or Solana, no account/API key), that invalid input is refused before payment, that failed runs are never charged, and that an unpaid call returns x402 PaymentRequired. It also notes the response includes retrieval time and observed changes since the prior look, which is genuinely useful behavioral context.

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 with the returned fields, then price, payment mechanics, and a call example. The payload sentence is a long run-on list, but every block (pricing, error/payment semantics, invocation) carries information an agent needs; the HTTP URL is the only mildly expendable element.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully enumerates return fields, and it also covers payment, refusal and failure semantics plus a usage example. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly appears to be missing.

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, but the description adds real meaning by bridging the vocabulary gap: it says 'Packagist' where the schema value is 'composer', and restates the ecosystem set alongside the package name. The schema's own examples (express, @types/node, requests, monolog/monolog) already cover name syntax.

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?

Names a specific resource (one package from npm, PyPI or Packagist) and enumerates the exact payload: latest version, licence, repo, deprecation/yanked status, version count, publish dates, dependencies, OSV advisories. This scope clearly separates it from siblings like deps_get_advisory, deps_get_version_history and deps_audit_project, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The single-package framing implies it is the per-package lookup versus deps_batch_check or deps_audit_project, and the HTTP URL plus get_example hint show how to invoke it. But there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement or named alternative, so the routing signal is only implicit.

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

All YRUZ x402 tools toolsInspect
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