Skip to main content
Glama

Atom.com — Premium Domains

by com.atom

appraise_domain

Read-only

Estimate the market value of a domain and explain why. Use when a user asks what a domain is worth, how much to pay/offer, or to appraise a domain.

Returns two SEPARATE numbers — do not conflate them: • estimated_value — Atom's estimated market price in USD (an estimate, never a guaranteed or quoted price). • domain_score — a 0–10 rating of the NAME's quality/brandability/desirability (10 = strongest). This is a quality score, NOT a confidence level and NOT a probability. A low domain_score means a weaker/less desirable name, not that the estimate is uncertain.

Also returns domain_score_label (weak/moderate/strong), factors (positive/negative signals behind the estimate), and comparable_sales. When presenting: state the estimated value as a price, describe domain_score as a quality rating (e.g. '6/10 — moderate brandability'), and NEVER describe domain_score as 'confidence'. Read the score_meaning field in the response.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesFull domain to appraise, including the extension, e.g. 'example.com'. Works for any domain, not just Atom listings.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes
domainYes
factorsNoSignals behind the estimate.
successYes
currencyNo
disclaimerNo
domain_scoreYes0–10 quality rating of the NAME (NOT a confidence level).
score_meaningNoExplains domain_score is a quality rating, not confidence.
estimated_valueYesAtom's estimated market value in USD (an estimate, not a quote).
comparable_salesNoRecent comparable sales (best-effort; .com only).
domain_score_maxNo
domain_score_labelNoHuman label for domain_score.
estimated_value_meaningNoHow to interpret estimated_value.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds rich behavioral context: it distinguishes estimated_value from domain_score, warns not to conflate them, clarifies domain_score is a quality rating not confidence, mentions factors and comparable_sales, and advises on presentation. No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is fairly long but front-loaded with purpose and usage. Each sentence adds value: explaining two numbers, warnings, and presentation advice. It could be slightly more concise, but the structure is logical and information-dense.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple return fields with nuanced meanings) and the existence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers key fields, their interpretation, and presentation without needing to restate schema. No gaps for a read-only appraise tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description of the 'domain' parameter. The description does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'Full domain... Works for any domain'). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool estimates domain market value and explains why. It uses specific verbs ('Estimate', 'appraise') and resource ('domain'). The usage guidance (e.g., 'when a user asks what a domain is worth') distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_domain_availability or generate_domain_names.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly tells when to use: 'Use when a user asks what a domain is worth, how much to pay/offer, or to appraise a domain.' It does not explicitly state when not to use, but siblings provide alternatives. The output explanation further guides correct interpretation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Atom.com — Premium Domains toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools serve the same resource+action through different payment channels (e.g., register_domain, register_domain_spt, get_domain_register_pay_link; purchase_domain, get_domain_purchase_pay_link, get_checkout_link; buy_ai_tokens, get_ai_tokens_pay_link). brainstorm_names is explicitly a duplicate of search_brandable_domains, so the set has multiple confusing overlaps despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tool names follow a predictable snake_case verb_noun pattern (appraise_domain, check_domain_availability, purchase_domain, screen_trademark_conflicts). Minor deviations like brainstorm_names, register_domain_spt, and get_checkout_link break the pattern slightly but remain readable and recognizable.

Tool Count3/5

Sixteen tools is right at the boundary where a tool set starts to feel heavy. Many tools are legitimately needed for discovery, purchasing, and payment routing, but the duplicate name-generation tool and the multiple payment-route variants add unnecessary bulk.

Completeness4/5

The core domain lifecycle is well covered: search/discovery, availability checks, details, appraisal, trademark screening, registrant contact, and both fresh registration and marketplace purchase paths are present. Minor gaps exist around post-purchase management, account balance visibility, and offer submission, but the main user journey has no significant dead ends.

Resources