Genexxis paid agent tools (x402)

cve_kev

Latest CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (filter by days, vendor, product, ransomware use) with due dates, required action and EPSS score joined. Price: $0.005 USDC per call, paid with x402 on Base.

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": "cve_kev"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`days`	No	Added to KEV within the last N days (default 30, max 3650)
`vendor`	No	Vendor name contains, e.g. Microsoft
`product`	No	Product name contains, e.g. Exchange
`maxItems`	No	Default 50, max 100
`ransomware`	No	Known ransomware campaign use

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the most consequential trait: a paid endpoint at $0.005 USDC per call via x402 on Base, which an agent must know before invoking. However, it says nothing about failure behavior when payment is absent, rate limits, or whether the 'latest' window is cached/refreshed.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the payment constraint. No filler, and the cost information occupies exactly the space it deserves.

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?

All 5 parameters are optional read filters, there is no output schema and no annotations, so the description reasonably covers returned fields and the payment requirement. Minor gaps remain around result shape/count behavior given default maxItems=50, but nothing blocks a correct invocation.

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 every parameter (days with default 30/max 3650, vendor, product, maxItems, ransomware) is already documented in structured data. The description lists the same filter concepts but adds no syntax, matching behavior, or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities) with the supported filters and the enriched output fields (due dates, required action, EPSS score), so the agent knows it retrieves and joins KEV data. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings cve_cve and cve_packages, leaving that differentation to inference.

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 by the listed filter dimensions ('filter by days, vendor, product, ransomware use'), from which an agent can infer 'use this for KEV-scoped vendor/product lookups'. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to the alternative tools cve_cve or cve_packages.

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?