Genexxis paid agent tools (x402)

verdict_card

Shareable verdict card for a Base or Solana token: grade BASED/MID/COOKED/RADIOACTIVE, 0-100 score, one-liner, reasons, key market metrics, plus a share URL and a 1200x630 PNG. Body {"tokenAddress":"0x..."} or {"chain":"solana","tokenAddress":""}. Price: $0.50 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": "verdict_card"
  }
}

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 26, 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 full behavioral load and does it well: it discloses the paid nature ($0.50 USDC per call), the payment rail (x402 on Base), the returned artifacts (share URL and PNG), and the chain defaulting rule. It stops short of covering failure modes, whether payment is charged on error, or rate limits.

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads the deliverable, then enumerates what it contains, then the call shape, then price. Every sentence earns its place, though the body-syntax and pricing clauses packed into one block make it slightly run-on.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns, and it does: grade categories, 0-100 score, one-liner, reasons, key metrics, share URL, and PNG. Combined with the pricing and address-format details, an agent has everything needed to call it and price it correctly.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by giving literal request-body examples for both chain variants and by noting that a 0x address defaults to Base. That extra example-level guidance is useful even though it slightly duplicates the schema's chain description.

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 concretely what is produced (a shareable verdict card with grade, score, one-liner, reasons, metrics, share URL, and a 1200x630 PNG) and for which resources (Base and Solana tokens). It does not name or distinguish itself from the likely-overlapping sibling tokenrisk_verdict, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 stated: the card format and price make the intent (generate a shareable visual verdict) inferable, and the body examples show how to call it for Base vs Solana. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives such as tokenrisk_verdict.

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?