Genexxis paid agent tools (x402)

research_paper

One paper in full detail by DOI, arXiv id or OpenAlex id: all authors with institutions and ORCID, abstract, venue, open-access links, topics with fields, citation count and citations per year, references count. Price: $0.01 USDC per call, paid with x402 on Base.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "research_paper"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`doi`	No	DOI, e.g. 10.48550/arXiv.1706.03762
`arxiv`	No	arXiv id, e.g. 1706.03762
`openalex`	No	OpenAlex work id, e.g. W2626778328

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does valuable work disclosing cost and payment mechanics ($0.01 USDC per call via x402 on Base), which an agent must know before calling. However, it omits failure behavior for missing/conflicting identifiers and any auth or wallet prerequisites for the x402 payment flow.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the price. The long field enumeration is dense but earns its place because no output schema exists. Nothing is redundant.

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 compensates well by enumerating the returned fields (authors with institutions/ORCID, abstract, venue, OA links, topics, citation counts) and disclosing the per-call price. The remaining gap is identifier-selection and validation behavior, which matters because no parameter is required.

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 each of the three identifiers is documented with a concrete example, so the description adds little beyond restating the accepted id types. The one meaningful addition, implicitly that the ids are alternatives ('or'), is too weak to resolve the zero-required-parameter ambiguity.

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 ('One paper in full detail') plus the three accepted identifier schemes, so it is clearly the single-paper lookup rather than a list. It does not explicitly name research_papers or research_related_papers as the alternatives, so differentiation with siblings relies on the singular/plural contrast.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus research_papers or research_related_papers, and no exclusion criteria. Critically, zero parameters are required and three identifiers are accepted, yet the description never says whether one is preferred, whether they can be combined, or what happens if none is supplied.

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?