Domain age / registrar / expiry summary via RDAP over HTTPS (no legacy port-43 WHOIS). Returns registeredAt, expiresAt, ageDays, registrar, status and nameservers. Read-only; price 0.0 (free).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name to look up |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly says 'Read-only; price 0.0 (free)' and mentions 'RDAP over HTTPS (no legacy port-43 WHOIS)', providing useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on potential limitations like rate limits or handling of unregistered domains.
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?
Three concise sentences: purpose, return fields, and safety/cost. Every sentence is informative without redundancy or fluff.
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?
The description covers the tool's input, output fields, and behavioral traits adequately for a simple lookup. It could mention error handling or response format, but given the lack of output schema, it is reasonably complete.
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 only parameter 'domain' is described in the schema, and the description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Schema coverage is 100%, 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 it provides a 'Domain age / registrar / expiry summary' using RDAP over HTTPS. It lists the exact return fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like domain_intel_dns_lookup (DNS records) and domain_intel_reputation (reputation scores).
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 implicitly defines usage by listing the returned data (registeredAt, expiresAt, etc.), suggesting it is the tool for basic registration info. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or exclude cases.
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, especially the ledger-watch groups with domain prefixes. However, there are near-duplicate utilities such as content_authenticity_domain_reputation and domain_intel_reputation, and fx_tax_convert overlaps with price_oracle_fx_rate/convert. The sheer number of tools also increases the chance of selecting the wrong one, though descriptions are generally clear.
The naming is largely consistent with a <domain>_<action> or <domain>_<watch>_<action> pattern, and all names use snake_case. Minor deviations include standalone names like entity_search, kyb_report, verify_receipt, and the confusing singular/plural pair of sanction_watch_* and sanctions_screen_*. Overall, the pattern is predictable.
With 172 tools, this server is far beyond the typical well-scoped range. It bundles dozens of unrelated utility domains (weather, carbon, CVE, geo, etc.) alongside the Japan public-ledger watches, making it unwieldy for an agent to navigate. This extreme count is a major coherence problem.
For the core Japan public-ledger domain, coverage is excellent: each ledger has search, get, timeline, recent_changes, and verify_ledger, plus cross-ledger entity_search and temporal_query. The unrelated utility areas are also fairly complete for their own purposes, but the server's scope is so broad that some utilities are duplicated (e.g., multiple currency converters). Overall, no critical dead ends in the main domain.