Genexxis paid agent tools (x402)

webtools_email_validate

Validates one email (email=) or up to 50 (emails=comma list, same price): RFC 5322 syntax, normalized form, MX records (A fallback), disposable, role account, free provider, typo suggestion, and a deliverable/risky/undeliverable verdict with reasons. No SMTP probing. Price: $0.01 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_email_validate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`email`	No	One email address
`emails`	No	Alternative: comma-separated list of up to 50 addresses (same price)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the key negative behavior ('No SMTP probing'), the cost model ($0.01 USDC per call), the payment rail (x402 on Base), and the flat pricing for batches. It stops short of saying what happens on malformed input or payment failure, so it's strong rather than complete.

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 verb and resource, then the calling convention, then the check list, then the two critical caveats (no SMTP, price). Three sentences, zero filler, and the paid-call warning is not buried.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the verdict tiers (deliverable/risky/undeliverable) and the supporting fields returned (normalized form, MX, typo suggestion). Payment and rate context are covered. It doesn't state error/refund behavior for unparseable input, which is the remaining gap for a paid tool.

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% and both parameter descriptions already state the single-vs-comma-list usage and the 50-address cap, so the description mostly restates structured data. The 'same price' cost note is the one genuinely added detail, which is already echoed in the schema as well. 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Validates one email') followed by an enumerated list of exactly what is checked (RFC 5322, MX/A fallback, disposable, role, free provider, typo, verdict). It is clearly distinguishable from most siblings, but it never acknowledges the potentially overlapping `domainaudit_email` tool, so an agent scanning the sibling list still has to guess between the two.

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 only implied: the reader infers 'use this when you need to validate addresses.' The description does explain the single-vs-batch calling convention ('one email (email=) or up to 50 (emails=comma list, same price)'), which is useful routing between its own two parameters, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative.

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?