Genexxis paid agent tools (x402)

domainaudit_domain_info

Domain registration and DNS in one call: RDAP registrar, created, updated, expires (days left), status codes, nameservers, DNSSEC, plus DNS A, AAAA, MX, NS, TXT and CAA records. 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": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "domainaudit_domain_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Domain, e.g. example.com

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add genuinely useful non-schema behavior: cost ($0.005 USDC per call) and the payment rail (x402 on Base). It does not disclose what happens for unregistered/NXDOMAIN domains, whether DNS lookups still return when RDAP fails, rate limits, or response format – significant gaps for a networked lookup tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads the returned data, the second front-loads the price. Every phrase carries information (registrar, days left, DNSSEC, record types) and there is no filler.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description does the heavy lifting by enumerating returned fields and the payment cost, which is what an agent needs to select and price the call. The remaining gap is failure semantics (unregistered domain, partial RDAP/DNS availability), which matters for a lookup tool but is secondary.

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?

Only one parameter (domain) and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage with an example. The description adds nothing about accepted forms (bare domain vs URL, IDN, subdomains), so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage 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 verb+resource combination ("Domain registration and DNS in one call") and enumerates exactly what is returned: RDAP registrar/dates/status/nameservers/DNSSEC plus A, AAAA, MX, NS, TXT, CAA. That is enough for an agent to tell it apart from narrower siblings such as domainaudit_email or domainaudit_tls, though it never names domainaudit_audit or domainaudit_whois_bulk as the overlapping alternatives.

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 content list and the phrase "in one call" – an agent can infer this is the combined registration+DNS lookup. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to the sibling tools that cover subsets of the same data.

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?