Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

YRUZ x402 tools

by io.github.xzntexe
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

YRUZ RealityGraph Fact History (0.008 USDC)

reality_get_history
Read-onlyIdempotent

Time-aware history of an entity: the source's revision log (when, which properties, which kind of edit), when the entity was created, and with as_of the facts the source stated at that past date compared to today (changed, added, removed per property). Plus attribute changes YRUZ observed itself. Source revision dates are when a claim was recorded, not when it became true; effective dates come from qualifiers. Price: 0.008 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":"reality_get_history"}. Same tool over HTTP: https://yruz.one/api/reality/history?id=Q7624104&as_of=2023-01-01

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "reality_get_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesWikidata id (required), e.g. Q7624104
langNolanguage of labels, 2-3 letters (default en)
as_ofNopast date YYYY-MM-DD to compare with now
limitNorevisions, 1-50 (default 25)
propertyNoonly edits of this property, e.g. P1128

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / as_of / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "2023-01-01"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "Q7624104"
+]
  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 readOnly/idempotent annotations: discloses cost (0.008 USDC via x402, no account or key), that invalid input is rejected before payment, failed runs are never charged, and that an unpaid call returns PaymentRequired. It also flags the critical semantic caveat that source revision dates are record dates, not effective dates.

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-loads what the tool returns, then the date-semantics caveat, then pricing and call mechanics, so the important content comes first. It is dense and long, with the HTTP URL and get_example pointer bordering on boilerplate, but no sentence is clearly wasted.

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 still sketches the returned content (revision entries, creation date, per-property deltas, observed attribute changes) and covers payment and rejection behavior. That is enough for an agent to decide whether to call it and what to expect back.

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 for as_of (per-property changed/added/removed deltas versus today) and clarifies that effective dates must come from qualifiers rather than revision timestamps. It says nothing extra about limit, property, or lang beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus its full scope: revision log, creation date, as_of comparison, and YRUZ-observed attribute changes. An agent can tell this is the historical counterpart to a current-facts lookup, but no sibling (e.g. reality_get_entity, reality_get_evidence) 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?

Usage is implied by the content ('time-aware history', as_of for past-vs-now comparison) but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or routing to alternatives like reality_get_entity for current facts. The payment precondition is stated, which is a hard requirement rather than usage guidance.

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