Genexxis paid agent tools (x402)

cve_packages

Scan up to 50 open-source packages (ecosystem, name, version) against OSV.dev: advisory ids, summary, severity, CVSS, fixed versions, CVE aliases with CISA KEV and EPSS joined, and a suggested minimum safe version. Price: $0.005 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": {
      "packages": "<packages>"
    },
    "name": "cve_packages"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`packages`	Yes	Up to 50 items {ecosystem (npm, PyPI, Maven, Go, crates.io, NuGet, RubyGems, Packagist, ...), name, version (optional)}

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

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 the data source (OSV.dev), batch ceiling, enrichment joins (CISA KEV, EPSS), and a concrete cost model ($0.005 USDC per call via x402 on Base). Not covered: rate limits, error/partial-failure behavior, and whether a failed or empty call is still charged.

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 sentences, both earning their place: capability first, price second. The return-field list is dense but front-loaded and scannable, and nothing is padded.

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?

With one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description fills the main gap by enumerating the response fields. For a paid mutation-free scan tool, the missing pieces are payment semantics (charged on partial failure?) and rate/limit behavior, which matter given the explicit price.

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% and the single 'packages' field already enumerates ecosystem/name/version and the 50-item cap, so the description largely restates structured data. It confirms ecosystem examples implicitly but adds no format detail (e.g., JSON array serialization as a string) beyond what the schema documents.

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 ('Scan up to 50 open-source packages') plus the upstream data source (OSV.dev) and the exact payload returned. An agent can tell this is a vulnerability scan. It does not name or contrast the cve_cve / cve_kev siblings, so sibling differentiation is implicit from the batch-package framing.

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 (dependency auditing) and the 50-package cap is stated, but there is no explicit 'use this when…' rule, no exclusion pointing to cve_cve or cve_kev for single-advisory lookups, and no note on what happens at >50 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?