Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

YRUZ x402 tools

by io.github.xzntexe
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

YRUZ TenderGraph Monitor Check (0.003 USDC)

tenders_monitor_check
Read-onlyIdempotent

One bounded monitoring check of a procurement procedure from any of its TED notices: the current fingerprint of its watched state (notices in the procedure, stage, lot deadlines, estimated value, winners and award value), changed true or false against the fingerprint you kept, and what differs from YRUZ's previous observation, so a new corrigendum, a moved deadline or a published award is caught. 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":"tenders_monitor_check"}. Same tool over HTTP: https://yruz.one/api/tenders/monitor?id=685949-2026

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": "tenders_monitor_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesTED publication number of a notice of the procedure (required)
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: +[
+  "685949-2026"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the full cost and auth model (0.003 USDC per call, x402 on Base or Solana, no account or API key) and precise failure semantics: invalid input is refused before payment, a failed run is never charged, and an unpaid call returns an x402 PaymentRequired. That is exactly the kind of payment/error context annotations cannot express.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose, return payload, pricing, failure behavior and endpoint all appear in a tight sequence with no filler; the dense parenthetical is a deliberate payload enumeration, not padding. Payment terms and the get_example pointer are placed after the purpose, keeping the core front-loaded.

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, and the description compensates fully by describing the three returned elements (current fingerprint, changed boolean, diff from the previous observation). Combined with payment and error behavior, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret a result.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description largely restates them. It does add round-trip context for `fingerprint` ('against the fingerprint you kept') and confirms `id` can be any notice of the procedure, but it stops short of stating what happens if an omitted or stale fingerprint is passed.

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?

The opening clause gives a specific verb and resource: 'one bounded monitoring check of a procurement procedure from any of its TED notices', and it enumerates the returned state (notices, stage, lot deadlines, estimated value, winners, award value). It never names the near-siblings (tenders_get_changes, tenders_get_history, tenders_get_deadlines) or says how this differs, so the agent must infer the boundary from the fingerprint/change-detection mechanics.

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 rather than stated: 'so a new corrigendum, a moved deadline or a published award is caught' signals repeat-polling, and 'No subscription: each check is one paid call' frames it as a recurring monitor. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing against the tenders_get_changes or tenders_get_history siblings, which overlap most closely.

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