Genexxis paid agent tools (x402)

prices_onchain_price

DEX price of a token by contract address on Base, Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon, BSC or Avalanche, or by Solana mint: median of DefiLlama, the deepest DexScreener pool and Jupiter, liquidity, 24h volume and change, confidence flags, and the USDC an executable route returns for selling sizeUsd (default 1000). No chain = all EVM chains searched. 404 not charged. Price: $0.003 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": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "prices_onchain_price"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`chain`	No	base, ethereum, arbitrum, optimism, polygon, bsc, avalanche or solana; omit to search every EVM chain
`quote`	No	false to skip the sell quote (faster)
`address`	Yes	Token contract (0x...) or Solana mint; "native" = the chain coin (wrapped)
`sizeUsd`	No	USD size of the sell quote, 1-1000000 (default 1000)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 8, 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 does real work: it discloses the pricing model ($0.003 USDC per call via x402 on Base), that failed 404 lookups are free, and how the returned price is constructed (median of three sources with confidence flags). It implies a paid read-only network call but never states rate limits, latency, or what confidence flags mean in practice.

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?

Purpose and coverage lead, followed by the output contents, then the two operational facts (free 404s, per-call price). It is dense and slightly run-on in the opening clause, but nearly every clause carries information an agent needs before paying for a call.

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 4-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the input model, the returned fields, and the payment semantics, which is close to what an agent needs. The remaining gap is behavioral depth — no statement of latency, failure modes beyond 404, or what happens on ambiguous multi-chain matches.

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 all four parameters are already documented, and the description mostly restates the schema (default sizeUsd 1000, chain omission meaning all EVM chains, skipping the quote for speed). It adds only the mild framing of sizeUsd as an executable sell size rather than a raw number, so the baseline 3 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?

The description names a specific resource (DEX token price by contract address/mint) and enumerates the supported chains and the aggregation sources (DefiLlama, deepest DexScreener pool, Jupiter). The verb is implied rather than stated (it's a retrieval tool), and it never distinguishes itself from the sibling prices_token_price, leaving an agent to guess which price tool to pick.

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?

It gives useful operating context: omitting chain searches every EVM chain, quote=false yields a faster response, and a 404 is not charged. What's missing is any explicit routing guidance — when to use this versus prices_token_price, prices_movers, or tokenrisk_* — so the agent must infer the choice from parameter shapes.

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?