domain_checkCheck domain availability and per-TLD pricing. Pass a full domain (example.com) or a bare name to scan popular TLDs. Free — no payment required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | A full domain (example.com) or a bare name (example) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and partially fulfills it by disclosing that the operation is free ('no payment required') and that a bare name triggers scanning of popular TLDs. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe side effects, but the verb 'check' strongly implies a non-destructive action.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by usage and cost details. Every word contributes to understanding, with no filler or repetition.
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?
Given the single parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers input format, behavior (scanning TLDs), and cost. It hints at the output via 'per-TLD pricing' but does not detail the exact return structure or error cases, which is a minor gap for a simple check tool.
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?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the 'domain' parameter, and the description essentially repeats the schema's phrasing ('A full domain or a bare name'). No additional semantic value is added beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('check') and resource (domain availability), and adds the distinguishing feature of per-TLD pricing. This differentiates it from siblings like domain_register, which handles registration. The input format is also clarified.
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?
The description gives clear context on how to use the tool by specifying the two acceptable input forms (full domain or bare name) and the behavior of scanning popular TLDs. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention sibling tools, but the relationship to domain registration is implied through the sibling list.
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 resource and action, clearly separated by domain prefixes (card_, email_, phone_, tiktok_). The only potential overlap is phone_read_messages vs wait_for_otp, but wait_for_otp is specifically for OTP extraction and is described as a replacement for hand-rolled polling, making the boundary clear. Status pollers are also domain-specific (card_status, tiktok_connect_status, tiktok_operation_status) and not ambiguous.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case convention with domain-first prefixes (e.g., card_buy, email_send, tiktok_post, phone_temp_number). Even less common names like wait_for_otp and i402_plan are descriptive and stylistically consistent. There are no mixed conventions or vague verbs.
33 tools is above the typical 3-15 range, but the server covers a broad multi-domain purpose (cards, compute, domains, email, phone, TikTok, Twitter, orchestration). Each domain has a focused and coherent set, so the count feels justified rather than bloated. It is slightly high, but not excessively so.
Coverage is solid for email, phone, and TikTok, with full lifecycle operations (create, read, extend, delete/cancel where applicable). However, there are notable gaps: compute has only deploy (no list/stop/delete), domains have only check/register (no list/delete), and Twitter has only post (no read/manage). These gaps could force agents to work around missing resource management.