Genexxis paid agent tools (x402)

webtools_images_for_llm

Batch of up to 10 image URLs prepared for a vision LLM in one paid call: each auto-rotated, resized to max_side (default 1568 px), re-encoded JPEG/PNG/WebP (<= 2 MB base64 each), with data URI, size and sha256. Per-image errors listed; if no image works the call is not charged. Single image: GET /image-for-llm. Price: $0.05 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": {
      "urls": "<urls>"
    },
    "name": "webtools_images_for_llm"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`urls`	Yes	1-10 public http(s) image URLs (JSON array, or a comma/newline-separated string)
`format`	No	Output format (default jpeg)
`quality`	No	JPEG/WebP quality 40-95 (default 85)
`max_side`	No	Longest side in px, 64-4096 (default 1568); never enlarged

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the pricing model ($0.05 USDC via x402 on Base), the charge policy on total failure, per-image error reporting, and the exact processing pipeline (auto-rotate, resize cap, re-encode, 2 MB base64 ceiling). An agent knows the cost, the failure semantics, and what transformations happen before calling.

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?

One dense, front-loaded paragraph that moves from capability to processing to error/charge policy to price — a sensible ordering with no filler sentences. It repeats a couple of schema facts (max_side default, 2 MB cap), which is the only reason it isn't a 5.

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?

For a paid, no-output-schema tool, the description covers everything an agent needs: what comes back (data URI, size, sha256 per image), partial-failure handling, billing conditions, and payment mechanism. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 all four parameters are already documented in structured data, including defaults and ranges. The description restates max_side's default and format choices and adds the useful 'never enlarged' behavior, but adds little parameter meaning beyond the schema — baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — batch preparation of up to 10 image URLs for a vision LLM — and immediately names the single-image counterpart, so it is distinguishable from webtools_image_for_llm without opening the schema.

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 'Batch of up to 10' framing plus the 'Single image: GET /image-for-llm' pointer gives clear routing between batch and single-image paths. It stops short of naming the sibling tool explicitly or stating exclusions (e.g. non-public or authenticated URLs), so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not guide.

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?