Genexxis paid agent tools (x402)

intel_recommend

Which x402 API should I call? Describe a task in plain words (need=) and get the 1-5 best paid APIs, one per seller, ranked by proven demand (30-day unique payers, repeat buyers, scanners excluded). Each pick is checked live (answers 402 now, live price, latency) and comes with its invocation example, reason codes, risk flags and a cheaper proven alternative. Whole CDP Bazaar. Each pick has match_strength and a ready request (GET URL or POST body); view=compact saves tokens. No picks = 404, not charged. Free demo: GET /recommend/demo?need=web search (or crypto prices, weather). Price: $0.008 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": {
      "need": "<need>"
    },
    "name": "intel_recommend"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`need`	Yes	The task in plain words, e.g. "check if a Base token is a honeypot"
`limit`	No	Number of picks, 1-5, default 3
`network`	No	base or solana (optional)
`maxPrice`	No	Maximum price per call in USD

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 25, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

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 ranking signals (30-day unique payers, repeat buyers, scanners excluded), a live verification pass (402 response, live price, latency), billing behavior ('No picks = 404, not charged'), and cost/payment rail ($0.008 USDC per call via x402 on Base). It omits rate limits and whether ranking data is cached, which keeps it short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded correctly with the core question, but the body is a dense telegraphic pile of parentheticals and sentence fragments ('Whole CDP Bazaar.') that interrupt the reading order. Most facts earn their place, but the stray `view=compact` clause costs space and creates a defect.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating what each pick contains (invocation example, reason codes, risk flags, cheaper proven alternative, match_strength, ready request), plus the 404-not-charged contract. Only the phantom `view` parameter and missing network/maxPrice semantics leave a gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value for `need` (plain words, with example transfer) and mentions the 1-5 picks count matching `limit`. However it advertises 'view=compact saves tokens' while no `view` property exists and additionalProperties is false, which is actively misleading parameter guidance; `network` and `maxPrice` get no added meaning.

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?

Opens with the exact decision it answers ('Which x402 API should I call?') and names the verb+resource (recommend paid x402 APIs from a plain-language task). It contrasts with discovery siblings (intel_find, list_services, intel_do_search) by scoping to the CDP Bazaar and by the stated output shape — 1-5 picks, one per seller, ranked by proven demand.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear trigger context (you have a task, you need an API to call), plus a free demo endpoint and the price so an agent can trial before paying. It does not explicitly say when to pick intel_find or list_services instead, so the alternative routing is left implicit.

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?