Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Genexxis paid agent tools (x402)

by com.genexxis
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

tokenrisk_token_tax

Buy, sell and transfer tax of a token, measured by a live buy/sell simulation on Base (honeypot.is) or read from the Token-2022 transfer fee on Solana. Also says if the tax can still be changed (fee setter, owner not renounced, fee authority), fee-exempt lists and max tx/wallet limits. Query token=, optional chain=base|solana. Price: $0.006 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": {
      "token": "<token>"
    },
    "name": "tokenrisk_token_tax"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNobase (default for 0x) or solana
tokenYesToken address on Base (0x...) or Solana mint

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real value: it discloses the paid model ('$0.006 USDC per call, paid with x402 on Base'), the chain-specific data source, and that the response covers more than tax (fee-changeability, fee-exempt lists, max tx/wallet limits). It does not state read-only semantics, latency, failure behavior for unsupported/invalid tokens, or output shape beyond a loose enumeration.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the extra signal (changeability, limits) and the practical constraint (chain forms, price). The middle sentence is list-like but every item is substantive rather than 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?

For a 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the essentials an agent needs to decide and call: chains, input form, data provenance, what the result contains conceptually, and the paid-access requirement. Only the absence of an explicit sibling/alternative pointer keeps it short of full completeness.

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 both parameters are already documented structurally; the description only restates the input form ('token=<address or mint>') and the Base default for 0x addresses. That is a marginal addition over what the schema and its field descriptions already convey.

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 set and resource — buy/sell/transfer tax of a token — plus the exact data source per chain (live simulation on Base via honeypot.is, Token-2022 transfer fee on Solana). An agent can distinguish it from the generic tokenrisk_check/honeypot siblings by the tax-specific framing, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 implied rather than prescribed: use it for a token address/mint when tax is the question, with 'optional chain=base|solana' telling the agent which input form triggers which chain. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many tokenrisk_* siblings.

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) toolsInspect
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