Due-diligence check on any domain: registration age via RDAP, registrar, DNS posture (A/MX/NS), SPF and DMARC presence, SSL certificate history, and risk flags like newly-registered or no-mail-setup. One call, one JSON verdict. [Paid: $0.008 USDC per call via x402 on Base; the calling client pays automatically.]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain to check, e.g. example.com |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses cost and payment method ($0.008 USDC via x402) which is a key behavioral trait. No annotations exist, so description covers most relevant aspects, though rate limits or error handling not mentioned.
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?
Concise: three sentences cover purpose, output format, and cost. No superfluous words. Front-loaded with key capabilities.
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?
For a tool with one parameter and no annotations, description covers purpose, checks, output format, and cost. Missing details like error handling or response structure, but not critical for selection.
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?
Single parameter 'domain' with schema description. Schema coverage is 100%, so description adds minimal extra value (example only). 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?
Description clearly states it performs due-diligence checks on domains, listing specific checks (registration age, DNS, SPF/DMARC, SSL, risk flags). Differentiates from siblings, none of which cover domain analysis.
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?
Explicitly says 'One call, one JSON verdict' indicating simplicity. No explicit when-not or alternatives, but sibling tools are unrelated, so context is clear.
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 of the 30 tools has a highly specific, non-overlapping purpose, from brand visibility to chemical safety to YouTube transcripts. Descriptions are detailed and clearly differentiate each tool's function, eliminating ambiguity.
All tool names use lowercase with hyphens, creating a consistent visual pattern. However, the structure varies: some are noun-verb (email-validate, pdf-extract), others noun-noun (brand-visibility, chem-compat). This minor inconsistency prevents a perfect score.
With 30 tools, the server offers a very broad surface. While each tool earns its place as a distinct utility, the high count may overwhelm agents and dilute focus. It is borderline heavy for a single server, hence a score of 3.
The tool set covers a wide range of domains: business, chemicals, crypto, domain, email, finance, holidays, trade, jobs, legal, mapping, medical, news, packages, electronics, PDF, product, recall, sanctions, screenshots, SEC, tech stack, web archive, web search, YouTube. Yet it lacks some common utilities like weather, translation, or image analysis, leaving notable gaps for a general-purpose utility server.