Genexxis paid agent tools (x402)

tokenrisk_verdict_lite

Quick token verdict for a Base token or Solana mint: grade BASED/MID/COOKED/RADIOACTIVE, 0-100 score, one-liner, top 3 reasons, honeypot and tax result, liquidity. Same live checks as POST /verdict, short answer. Query token=, optional chain=base|solana. Price: $0.005 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_verdict_lite"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the output contents, live-check behavior, and the $0.005 USDC x402 payment requirement. It does not detail rate limits, error cases, or explicitly declare read-only behavior, keeping it below 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then compactly covers output, comparison to the full verdict endpoint, parameters, and pricing. Every sentence adds relevant information without padding.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the call shape, return contents, chain options, and payment model. It could be slightly more complete by naming the full sibling tool explicitly or describing error/edge behavior, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates token as an address and chain as base|solana, adding little beyond the schema's existing parameter descriptions and default hint.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: a quick token verdict for Base tokens or Solana mints. It also enumerates the returned artifacts (grade, score, one-liner, top reasons, honeypot/tax, liquidity), making the tool distinguishable from generic token lookups and fuller verdict tools.

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?

The description makes clear this is the lite/quick/short-answer variant and references the same live checks as POST /verdict. It gives good context for choosing it when a fast verdict is sufficient, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it.

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?