Genexxis paid agent tools (x402)

webtools_company

Company enrichment by domain (or URL or work email): name, legal name, description, industry, founded, HQ, country, employees, revenue, stock tickers, LEI/SEC CIK, official social profiles, role contact emails, tech stack, email provider and SaaS in use, domain age. Open data with a source per field, no personal data. Errors, unknown or parked domains and free-mail domains are not charged. Price: $0.02 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": "webtools_company"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No	Alternative: any URL on the company website
`email`	No	Alternative: a work email address; its domain is used (free-mail domains are refused, not charged)
`domain`	No	Company domain, e.g. hubspot.com (a subdomain is reduced to its registrable domain)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden well: it discloses pricing ($0.02 USDC via x402 on Base), the billing exemption for failed/unknown/parked/free-mail lookups, the no-personal-data policy with per-field sourcing, and which input forms are rejected. It omits rate limits, latency, pagination/caching behavior, and the response envelope, but those are secondary for a paid lookup endpoint.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by a compact field inventory and then the commercial terms. Every sentence carries information an agent needs (outputs, safety, cost); there is 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?

With no output schema, listing the returned fields is essential and done thoroughly, and the pricing/charging rules cover the commercial risk an agent must weigh. Missing only operational detail (response shape, timing, whether multiple inputs can be combined) for a tool advertised as returning dozens of fields.

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 the schema already explains domain vs. URL vs. email and the free-mail refusal. The description echoes that ('by domain (or URL or work email)') without adding new semantics such as precedence when multiple inputs are supplied or normalization rules beyond subdomain reduction. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Company enrichment by domain') and enumerates the exact data returned (legal name, industry, LEI/SEC CIK, tech stack, domain age), so an agent knows precisely what this tool produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-neighbours like domainaudit_domain_info or webtools_tech_stack_detect, which overlap on domain/tech data.

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?

It gives clear input acceptance rules (domain, URL, or work email; subdomains reduced) and states that errors, unknown/parked domains, and free-mail domains are not charged, which implies when a call is safe to attempt. It offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to sibling domain or tech-stack tools, leaving the alternates to inference.

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?