Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

YRUZ x402 tools

by io.github.xzntexe
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

YRUZ TenderGraph Deadlines (0.003 USDC)

tenders_get_deadlines
Read-onlyIdempotent

Open calls for tenders whose submission deadline falls in the next 1-90 days, soonest first, with the earliest qualifying lot deadline, buyer, CPV, estimated value and links. Filter by keywords, buyer country, CPV and authority. Deadlines are as published in the latest call notice found; a later corrigendum can move them (check the history). 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":"tenders_get_deadlines"}. Same tool over HTTP: https://yruz.one/api/tenders/deadlines?cpv=72&days=14&limit=10

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "tenders_get_deadlines"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNokeywords in the notice text, e.g. cloud software
cpvNoCPV code or prefix, 2-8 digits, e.g. 72 or 72000000
daysNowindow in days, 1-90 (default 14)
langNolanguage, 2 letters (default en)
buyerNocontracting authority name contains
limitNonotices, 1-50 (default 20)
countryNobuyer country, ISO code (DE, DEU, RS, SRB ...)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / cpv / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "72"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / days / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "14"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "10"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/open-world, yet the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: priced at 0.003 USDC via x402 (Base or Solana, no account or API key), invalid input refused before payment, failed runs never charged, and unauthenticated calls return PaymentRequired. These are payment-flow traits an agent cannot infer from the annotations or 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?

Purpose and result shape are front-loaded in the first sentence, with caveats and payment terms after. It is dense but mostly earning its space; the raw HTTP URL and get_example pointer are useful but slightly bloat an already long block.

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?

For a 7-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it describes the returned record (earliest qualifying lot deadline, buyer, CPV, estimated value, links), ordering, the corrigendum caveat, and the full payment/failure lifecycle. Nothing needed to call it correctly appears missing.

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?

All 7 parameters are documented at 100% coverage in the schema, so the schema already carries the semantics and baseline 3 applies. The description echoes the filter dimensions and the 1-90 day window but adds no format detail (e.g., CPV prefix behavior, ISO code variants) beyond what the schema states.

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?

Opens with a precise verb+resource+scope: 'Open calls for tenders whose submission deadline falls in the next 1-90 days, soonest first,' and names the returned fields (lot deadline, buyer, CPV, value, links). It is clearly distinguishable from tenders_search by the deadline-first framing, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with that sibling.

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?

Gives concrete usage context ('Filter by keywords, buyer country, CPV and authority') and routes the agent to two siblings by name: 'check the history' (tenders_get_history) for corrigenda and get_example for call syntax. It stops short of stating when to prefer tenders_search over this tool, so it is not a full 5.

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