Check whether a domain is a known disposable / throwaway email provider against a bundled list. Accepts a bare domain or a full email address. Pure; price 0.0 (free).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | Email address (its domain is used if domain is omitted) | ||
| domain | No | Domain name (bare host) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Pure' (likely meaning no side effects) and the price, but fails to describe the return value, error handling, or limitations of the bundled list. This leaves significant ambiguity about what the tool actually outputs or how it behaves on invalid input.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no unnecessary fluff. The extra detail about pricing and input flexibility earns its place by setting expectations succinctly.
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 low complexity of the tool, the description covers the core purpose and input parameters, but it lacks any mention of the return value or output format. Since there is no output schema, the description should compensate by stating whether the tool returns a boolean, a reason, or status code, which is absent. It is adequate but has clear gaps.
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 schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'email' and 'domain', including the note that the email's domain is used if domain is omitted. The description's line 'Accepts a bare domain or a full email address' essentially paraphrases the schema without adding new meaning, so it adds little beyond the baseline.
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 states a specific action ('Check whether a domain is a known disposable / throwaway email provider') against a clearly identified resource ('a bundled list'). It also clarifies accepted input formats, distinguishing it from sibling email_verify tools like MX/SPF checks.
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 when to use the tool (to detect disposable email providers) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. While the input flexibility is noted, there is no direct comparison to sibling tools such as email_verify_check_mx or email_verify_role_account, leaving the selection guidance implicit.
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.