whoisWHOIS lookup for a domain or IP address, returning registration and ownership information. 특정 도메인 또는 IP의 WHOIS(등록·소유) 정보를 조회합니다. .kr/.한국 도메인, 국내 IP, AS번호(예: AS9318)는 KISA/KRNIC 원본 정보로 조회됩니다. [호출당 100포인트]
| 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?
Annotations already declare this as a read-only, open-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting the KISA/KRNIC source for Korean domains/IPs/AS numbers and the per-call point cost (100 points), which goes beyond the basic annotation hints. No contradictions.
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 concise but includes both English and Korean versions, which adds some redundancy for bilingual audiences. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a special-note sentence and a cost indicator, so each sentence earns its place, though slight trimming could be done.
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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the primary purpose, supported address types, special data-source behavior, and cost. It does not detail the return format, but that is acceptable since no output schema exists and the operation is straightforward.
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 describes the 'address' parameter simply as a domain or IP. The description adds that AS numbers (e.g., AS9318) are also accepted and routed through KISA/KRNIC, which significantly expands the parameter semantics beyond the schema's coverage. This justifies above-baseline scoring.
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 performs WHOIS lookups for domains or IP addresses and returns registration/ownership information, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like nslookup or reverse_ip, which handle DNS or reverse 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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (domain/IP/AS WHOIS lookup) and highlights special handling for .kr/.한국 domains and domestic IPs via KISA/KRNIC. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, 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.
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.