Get registration requirements for a TLD: allowed registration period range, whether an organization is required, allowed registrant countries, nameserver rules, and similar registry policy.
Backed by GET /api/tlds/{tld}/metadata — public, no auth required.
Args:
tld: The TLD without a leading dot, e.g. "ai" or "io".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tld | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description does not contradict them. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by revealing the backing GET endpoint and explicitly stating the call is public and requires no authentication, which helps an agent anticipate authorization needs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is tight and well-structured: a front-loaded summary of the tool's purpose, a one-line endpoint/auth note, and a clearly formatted Args section. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema fields.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is complete: it defines the parameter format, identifies the backing endpoint, clarifies authentication, and summarizes the kind of registry policy data returned. Nothing essential for a correct call is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the weight, and it does: it explains the tld parameter should be given without a leading dot and provides concrete examples 'ai' or 'io'. This is meaningful format guidance that the raw input schema does not offer.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get registration requirements for a TLD,' and then enumerates concrete policy dimensions such as registration period range, organization requirement, allowed countries, nameserver rules, and similar policy. This makes it clearly distinct from siblings like whois_lookup, tld_registration_price, and search_domain without needing to open their schemas.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the description: query this tool when you need TLD registration policy details. It also provides useful context by noting the endpoint and that no auth is required, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this over sibling tools or when it would be inappropriate to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct concern: availability/alternates, TLD pricing, TLD policy requirements, and WHOIS details. There is no overlap or ambiguous boundary between them.
All names are snake_case and descriptive, but conventions are mixed: search_domain is verb_noun, whois_lookup is noun_verb, and the two tld_* tools are noun phrases. The tld_ prefix provides cohesion, making the set predictable despite the lack of a single uniform pattern.
Four tools is well-scoped for a domain-information server. Each tool contributes a necessary capability without redundancy or bloat.
The surface covers the core domain-research lifecycle: availability, pricing, registry requirements, and existing registration details. A minor gap is the lack of any purchase/registration action, but the server appears intentionally informational rather than transactional.