Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

YRUZ x402 tools

by io.github.xzntexe
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

YRUZ RealityGraph Monitor Check (0.003 USDC)

reality_monitor_check
Read-onlyIdempotent

One bounded monitoring check of an entity: the current fingerprint of its core facts (country, headquarters, website, CEO, employees, revenue, population, version ... by kind), changed true or false against the fingerprint you kept, the facts that differ from YRUZ's previous observation, and the source's latest revision. No subscription: 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":"reality_monitor_check"}. Same tool over HTTP: https://yruz.one/api/reality/monitor?id=Q7624104

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_monitor_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesWikidata id (required), e.g. Q7624104
fingerprintNofingerprint returned by your previous check (optional)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "Q7624104"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, and the description layers on substantial non-obvious behavior: 0.003 USDC per call via x402 on Base or Solana, no account or API key, invalid input refused before payment, failed runs never charged, and a PaymentRequired response without payment. None of that is inferable from the structured fields.

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 return shape, then payment terms, then the invocation pointer and HTTP endpoint — a sensible order with no filler sentences. The parenthetical field list ("country, headquarters, website, CEO, employees, revenue, population, version ...") is slightly noisy but conveys which fact kinds are fingerprinted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming each returned element. Combined with pricing, error handling (invalid input refused, failed run uncharged, PaymentRequired), and the get_example pointer, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret this tool.

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; the description earns above that by explaining what fingerprint is for (the value from your previous check, used to compute changed) and that id is the entity key. It doesn't add format detail beyond the schema's own examples, so it stops short of 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — "one bounded monitoring check of an entity" — and enumerates exactly what comes back (fingerprint, changed flag, differing facts, source's latest revision). That output shape distinguishes it from siblings like reality_get_entity (full record) and reality_get_history (past observations) without needing the schema.

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 phrase "changed true or false against the fingerprint you kept" makes the monitoring loop explicit and tells the agent to pass back a prior fingerprint, and the per-call payment model clarifies there is no subscription to set up. It never names an alternative such as reality_get_entity for a one-off lookup, so the routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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