Genexxis paid agent tools (x402)

domainaudit_audit_bundle

One-call website report for a URL: on-page SEO, accessibility pass on the HTML (alt text, form labels, html lang, button/link names, heading order, duplicate ids; contrast not measured), security headers, TLS, email anti-spoofing and RDAP registration, with section scores, an overall 0-100 score and the top 10 fixes. Body {"url":"https://..."}. Price: $0.05 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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "domainaudit_audit_bundle"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	Page URL (https://...) or plain hostname

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

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 that paid usage is required ($0.05 USDC via x402 on Base), states what the response contains (section scores, 0-100 overall, top 10 fixes), and explicitly bounds the accessibility pass ("contrast not measured"). What it does not cover is error/failure behavior or latency on slow external lookups.

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?

The scope and the cost are front-loaded into two dense sentences with no filler. The parenthetical enumeration of accessibility checks is long but each item genuinely scopes the tool's output; only the run-on construction is a minor style cost.

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?

For a complex, payment-gated, many-source audit tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is measured, what is deliberately not measured, what is returned, and what it costs. Remaining gaps (rate limits, partial-failure behavior) are secondary and nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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% for the single url parameter, so baseline would be 3. The description adds value by showing the request envelope (Body {"url":"https://..."}), clarifying that the URL travels in the JSON body rather than the query string — a detail the schema alone does not convey.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a concrete verb+resource ("one-call website report for a URL") and then enumerates exactly which audit domains are covered (SEO, accessibility, security headers, TLS, email anti-spoofing, RDAP). Listing all bundled sections makes clear it aggregates what the sibling single-purpose tools (domainaudit_seo, domainaudit_headers, domainaudit_tls, domainaudit_email) do individually, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

"One-call" implies the tool is for when the agent wants a complete audit in a single request, but the description never states when to prefer it over the individual domainaudit_* sibling tools, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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?