domain_registerRegister a domain to your wallet. Priced per TLD — the exact quote is returned in the 402 challenge, paid per-action via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Full domain to register, e.g. 'example.com' | |
| payment | No | base64 x402 payment payload (X-PAYMENT); omit on first call to receive payment instructions |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: pricing is per TLD and payment is handled via a 402 challenge (x402). However, it omits details about what happens after registration, potential errors (e.g., domain already taken), and the two-step call pattern (first call without payment), leaving gaps in the behavioral model.
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 core purpose. The second sentence efficiently explains the payment mechanism, which is essential for correct usage. No unnecessary words 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 tool's moderate complexity (two parameters, payment flow) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and payment but misses the return value and the explicit two-step invocation (omit payment first, then include it). The schema hints at the two-step pattern, but the description alone isn't fully self-contained for an agent to know what to expect on success.
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 schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both 'domain' and 'payment' parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, 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 'Register a domain to your wallet,' specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling domain_check by focusing on registration rather than checking availability. The payment detail adds specificity without confusing the core purpose.
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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: when you intend to register a domain and are ready to handle the x402 payment flow. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like domain_check or state conditions when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.
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.