Genexxis paid agent tools (x402)

chainread_token

Token metadata for any contract: ERC-20 name, symbol, decimals, total supply (raw and formatted), or ERC-721 / ERC-1155 detection via ERC-165 interfaces. 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": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "chainread_token"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	No	ethereum (default), base, arbitrum, optimism, polygon, bsc
`address`	Yes	Token contract address

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses pricing ($0.003 USDC per call, paid with x402 on Base) and lists the metadata that will be returned, but it does not describe read-only behavior, permissions, error handling, or idempotency.

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?

The description is two tightly written sentences that front-load the tool's purpose and then add the price/payment detail. There is no redundant or filler text.

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?

Given the simple two-parameter input and the absence of an output schema, the description does a good job of enumerating the return fields (name, symbol, decimals, total supply raw/formatted, and token-standard detection). It could be more complete by describing edge cases or error behavior, but it covers the essentials for this tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds little parameter-level detail beyond mentioning ERC-165 interfaces, which does not clarify the 'chain' or 'address' parameters. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 description states a specific resource ('Token metadata for any contract') and enumerates the fields returned (name, symbol, decimals, total supply, and ERC-20/721/1155 detection via ERC-165). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like chainread_read_contract or tokenrisk_check.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state when not to use it. The usage is only implied by the purpose statement, with no mention of sibling tools or selection criteria.

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?