locationLook up the geographic location of a domain or IP address. 도메인 또는 IP의 위치(지리 정보)를 조회합니다. 도메인을 입력하면 해당 도메인의 IP를 찾아 위치를 반환합니다. [호출당 30포인트]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | 검색할 도메인 또는 IP (예: apick.app) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Although annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains that a domain input will first be resolved to an IP before returning location, and it notes a cost of 30 points per call. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps the agent understand resolution behavior and resource usage.
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 short and front-loaded with the primary English statement, but it redundantly repeats the same information in Korean ('도메인 또는 IP의 위치(지리 정보)를 조회합니다'). The cost note is useful, but the bilingual duplication slightly reduces efficiency. Overall it is compact and readable.
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?
With a single parameter, no output schema, and a simple read-only operation, the description covers the main behavior and cost. However, it does not specify the format or detail of the returned geographic information (e.g., country, city, coordinates), which is relevant given there is no output schema to fill that gap.
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 already has 100% coverage for the single 'address' parameter, including its description and example ('apick.app'). The description repeats that the input can be a domain or IP and adds the resolution behavior, but it does not meaningfully enhance the parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline 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 function: 'Look up the geographic location of a domain or IP address.' It includes a specific verb (look up), resource (domain/IP), and scope (geographic location). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nslookup or whois, which serve different DNS/registration lookups.
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 explains what inputs are accepted ('domain or IP address') but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as reverse_ip, nslookup, or whois. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes; even within families like identi_card1-5 vs identi_card_image1-5, the text-input vs image-input distinction is clear. However, the sheer number of tools and some near-synonyms (e.g., ocr_identi1 vs identi_card_image1) could cause occasional misselection, but descriptions mitigate this.
Naming follows a loose verb-first pattern (check_, crawl_, download_, draw_, etc.) but includes significant deviations: bare nouns (bank_code, location, whois), numbered variants (identi_card1, identi_card_image1), and mixed prefixes (ocr_, identity_, etc.). The inconsistency is noticeable but still readable and predictable within functional clusters.
80 tools is far above the typical 3-15, but the server is a broad API aggregator covering many independent domains (banking, ID verification, media conversion, search, LLM, etc.), so the high count is somewhat justified. Still, the sheer number makes the toolkit feel unwieldy and hard to navigate, placing it at the high end of acceptable.
Within its stated purpose as a general-purpose utility API, the toolset covers a wide array of common task families: identity document verification (text and image), OCR field extraction, media conversion, web/search, domain/IP lookup, and LLM chat. Most operations have both get and act variants (e.g., set/get watermark, parcel_tracking/auto), with few obvious dead ends for typical use cases.