Genexxis paid agent tools (x402)

tokenrisk_verdict

Is this token any good? Grade BASED/MID/COOKED/RADIOACTIVE, 0-100 score, one-liner, roast and reasons from live data: honeypot buy/sell simulation and taxes, owner powers (Base) or mint/freeze authority (Solana), liquidity, volume, buys/sells and pool age across all DEX pools. Body {"tokenAddress":"0x..."} or {"chain":"solana","tokenAddress":""}. Synchronous. Price: $0.015 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": {
      "tokenAddress": "<tokenAddress>"
    },
    "name": "tokenrisk_verdict"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	No	base (default for 0x addresses) or solana
`tokenAddress`	Yes	Token contract address (Base, 0x...) or Solana mint

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses synchronous execution, the exact price ($0.015 USDC per call via x402 on Base), and the data sources feeding the verdict. It doesn't cover latency, rate limits, or failure behavior, which keeps it from 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Front-loaded with the core question and output shape, then data sources, then invocation format and practical facts. Dense but every sentence earns its place with no 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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the return components, data inputs, payment model, and sync nature. Missing only an explicit contrast with tokenrisk_check, which would complete the picture for a two-tool family.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds concrete body examples distinguishing a Base 0x address from a Solana mint and the chain pairing, which is genuinely useful 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource (grade a token) and enumerates the exact outputs (BASED/MID/COOKED/RADIOACTIVE grade, 0-100 score, one-liner, roast, reasons) and the underlying data sources. It's very clear what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tokenrisk_check, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The framing 'Is this token any good?' implies when to reach for it, and the body-format examples clarify invocation contexts (Base 0x vs Solana mint). But there's no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to tokenrisk_check, nor any stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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?