Genexxis paid agent tools (x402)

carry_convert

Convert an amount between ~50 currencies at the official reference rate (Bank Al-Maghrib for MAD pairs, ECB otherwise, cross via EUR), with rate, date and source. Price: $0.003 USDC per call, paid with x402 on Base.

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": {
      "from": "<from>",
      "to": "<to>"
    },
    "name": "carry_convert"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	Yes	ISO 4217 code
`from`	Yes	ISO 4217 code
`amount`	No	Positive amount, default 1

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses cost ($0.003 USDC per call), the payment rail (x402 on Base), the rate providers (Bank Al-Maghrib for MAD pairs, ECB otherwise, cross via EUR), and that rate, date and source are returned. It stops short of stating behavior for unsupported currencies, rounding, or what happens if payment fails.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and currency universe, with pricing/payment as a clearly separated secondary sentence. Nearly every clause earns its place; only the pricing detail is arguably discoverable elsewhere.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No annotations and no output schema, yet the description supplies the rate source, cross-rate methodology, cost and payment mechanism – enough to call it correctly. Missing only edge-case behavior (unsupported codes, rounding) and positioning against the FX sibling.

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 constraint beyond the schema: the universe is '~50 currencies' and MAD pairs use a different provider, which meaningfully governs the acceptable ISO 4217 values for 'from'/'to'. It does not restate the amount default of 1, which the schema already covers.

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 ('Convert an amount between ~50 currencies') plus the rate provenance, so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling macro_fx, which likely also exposes FX rates, so the agent cannot tell the two apart from the description alone.

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 only implied by the verb 'Convert' – a single-amount conversion. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, and no mention of when macro_fx, carry_pair or carry_ranking would be preferable, nor any prerequisite for the payment step described at the end.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Genexxis paid agent tools (x402) tools Inspect

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

Need Help?