Genexxis paid agent tools (x402)

intel_benchmark

Market benchmark for an x402 category: supply (endpoints, sellers), demand (30-day payers, calls, estimated revenue), price quartiles for all and proven sellers, top sellers. Price: $0.01 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": {
      "q": "<q>"
    },
    "name": "intel_benchmark"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	Yes	Category keywords

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it discloses cost ($0.01 USDC per call via x402 on Base) and the return dimensions (supply, demand, price quartiles, top sellers). It omits rate limits, data freshness, and error behavior, but covers the key payment and output behavior for a read tool.

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, front-loaded with what it returns; the payment sentence adds necessary invocation detail without waste.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description gives enough: it lists returned metrics and payment requirements. It could be more complete by describing q syntax or response structure, but not critically.

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 defines q as 'Category keywords'; the description only reinforces that q scopes an x402 category and adds no format, multi-keyword, or example semantics beyond the schema.

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 it returns a market benchmark for an x402 category and enumerates supply, demand, price quartiles and top sellers, so the resource and scope are clear. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like intel_find or x402check_check to differentiate use cases.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given; it only implies benchmarking for an x402 category. An agent cannot tell from this text when to choose it over intel_find, intel_recommend, or x402check_check.

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?