Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

YRUZ x402 tools

by io.github.xzntexe
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

YRUZ DependencyPulse Monitor Check (0.003 USDC)

deps_monitor_check
Read-onlyIdempotent

One bounded monitoring check of a package: the current fingerprint of its watched attributes (latest version, licence, deprecation, version count, advisories on the latest release), changed true or false against the fingerprint you kept from your previous check, the attributes that differ from YRUZ's previous observation, and when it was observed. No subscription: you call it on your own schedule, each check is one paid call. 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_monitor_check"}. Same tool over HTTP: https://yruz.one/api/deps/monitor?ecosystem=npm&name=axios

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_monitor_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYespackage name (required)
ecosystemNonpm (default), pypi or composer
fingerprintNofingerprint returned by your previous check (optional)

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: +[
+  "axios"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations declaring read-only and idempotent behavior, the description discloses payment mechanics (x402, 0.003 USDC, no account or API key), failure handling (invalid input refused before payment, failed runs never charged), and the PaymentRequired response when unpaid. It also explains the monitoring semantics and how to get a call example.

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 description is front-loaded with the core monitoring behavior and then covers payment and invocation details. It is longer than average but largely earned, though the price is repeated in the title and payment text could be slightly tighter.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains the return shape: current fingerprint, changed boolean, differing attributes, and observation time. Combined with annotations and payment details, an agent has enough to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 name, ecosystem, and fingerprint are already documented. The description adds useful context around the fingerprint's purpose and mentions watch attributes, but does not provide additional syntax or constraints beyond 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 states a specific action and resource: a bounded monitoring check of a package, returning a fingerprint, change flag, differing attributes, and observation time. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling deps_audit_project, deps_batch_check, deps_get_changes, and advisory-specific 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 explains the operating model clearly: call on your own schedule, one paid check per call, and compare against a fingerprint kept from a previous check. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, which keeps it below 5, but the context for correct use is clear.

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