Atom.com — Premium Domains

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

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Full domain to appraise, including the extension, e.g. 'example.com'. Works for any domain, not just Atom listings.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes
`domain`	Yes
`factors`	No	Signals behind the estimate.
`success`	Yes
`currency`	No
`disclaimer`	No
`domain_score`	Yes	0–10 quality rating of the NAME (NOT a confidence level).
`score_meaning`	No	Explains domain_score is a quality rating, not confidence.
`estimated_value`	Yes	Atom's estimated market value in USD (an estimate, not a quote).
`comparable_sales`	No	Recent comparable sales (best-effort; .com only).
`domain_score_max`	No
`domain_score_label`	No	Human label for domain_score.
`estimated_value_meaning`	No	How to interpret estimated_value.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedJun 9, 2026

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 tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.