Agent Margin Router

QR Code Generator

qr_generate

Read-only

Generate a QR code from any text or URL and return it as a scalable SVG image plus a data-URI. Pure key-less generation, no third-party service. Pay per call with USDC or USDT on Base via x402. 3 free calls per wallet.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	Yes	Text or URL to encode in the QR code.
`scale`	No	Pixel size of each QR module in the SVG (1-40). Defaults to 8.
`border`	No	Quiet-zone width in modules (0-20). Defaults to 4.
`wallet`	No	Your EVM wallet address (0x...). Unlocks the free tier (3 free calls per wallet).
`api_key`	No	Optional AMR enterprise API key.
`x_payment`	No	Optional signed x402 payment payload (base64 JSON) for USDC/USDT on Base.
`error_correction`	No	Error-correction level: L, M, Q or H. Defaults to M.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`svg`	Yes
`data`	Yes
`token`	No	Token actually used for payment (USDC, USDT or FREE).	USDC
`format`	Yes
`source`	Yes
`routing`	Yes	How the request was routed (provider, fallback, cache, latency).
`version`	Yes
`data_uri`	Yes
`cost_usdc`	Yes	Price charged in stablecoin units (USDC/USDT 1:1); 0 on the free tier.
`fetched_at`	No	UTC timestamp when the data was fetched.
`module_count`	Yes
`error_correction`	Yes
`freshness_seconds`	Yes	Age of the underlying data in seconds (0 = fetched live).
`x_payment_response`	No	Base64-encoded x402 settlement receipt (mirrors the X-PAYMENT-RESPONSE header). Only present when the call was paid with `x_payment`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedSep 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description claims 'no third-party service' and 'pure key-less generation', which directly contradicts the openWorldHint annotation that suggests external interaction. This is a serious inconsistency that could mislead the agent about the tool's network behavior. Score 1 per rubric.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core functionality, then payment details. No redundancy. Each sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the core function, output format, payment model, and free tier. It lacks details on error handling or specific output structure, but the output schema exists. Given the contradiction, the completeness is slightly marred, but the information present is sufficient for an agent to call it.

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?

The schema descriptions cover all parameters with 100% coverage, including defaults. The tool description adds nothing about parameters beyond the schema, so it relies on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action (generate a QR code), the input (text or URL), and the output (SVG + data-URI). It clearly distinguishes from siblings which are unrelated. This is a clear, unambiguous purpose.

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?

It provides context on when to use: for any text/URL encoding, with payment requirements and free tier. It does not mention alternatives because none exist in the sibling list. It gives enough context on payment and key-less generation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Agent Margin Router 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.