Look up a domain's agent-readiness score in the Open Agent Registry. Proxies to /open-agent-registry/api/scan. Returns the full Profile (signals, score, label, approval_path).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Bare domain to scan, e.g. 'stripe.com'. No protocol, no path. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the proxy endpoint and return structure, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, authentication needs, or potential side effects. It is adequate but lacks depth.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted text. The purpose is front-loaded, and the return type is concisely described. Every sentence adds value.
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, read operation), the description is sufficiently complete. It mentions the proxy endpoint and the full response structure. Minor omission: no explicit mention of read-only nature.
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 coverage is 100% and includes a pattern and description for the single parameter. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('Look up a domain's agent-readiness score') and the specific resource (Open Agent Registry). It also distinguishes from siblings by describing a specific lookup functionality not covered by query_platform or submit_inquiry.
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 implies usage (looking up a domain's score) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It lacks comparative context with sibling tools.
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 function: query_platform for platform info, registry_lookup for domain scores, submit_inquiry for contact. No overlap.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (query_platform, registry_lookup, submit_inquiry).
3 tools is appropriate for a focused registry server covering platform info, data lookup, and contact submission.
Covers core operations for the stated purpose, though missing features like domain registration or listing might be useful for some use cases.