Cheap domain enrichment: DNS/RDAP + optional IP geo. Params: { domain } (x402: 0.001 USDC per call)
HTTP equivalent: GET /x402/domain-enrich Payment: x402 protocol — send X-PAYMENT header with base64 payment payload, or X-API-Key / X-Owner-Key / Bearer token to bypass.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses payment requirements (x402 protocol, cost per call) and authentication methods (X-PAYMENT header or API keys). However, annotations carry almost no behavioral information (only a title), so the description is expected to cover more. It omits return format, whether it's read-only, rate limits, or error behaviors, leaving gaps.
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 extremely concise and front-loaded. The first phrase 'Cheap domain enrichment' immediately conveys the tool's purpose, followed by the param, cost, and payment details. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler.
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 empty schema, absent output schema, and minimal annotations, the description should provide more context. It fails to mention what data is returned, how 'optional IP geo' is controlled, whether there are limits, or examples of usage. For a tool that requires payment, this is incomplete.
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 input schema is empty with additionalProperties true, so the description is the sole source of parameter information. It mentions 'Params: { domain }' and 'optional IP geo', giving some meaning. However, the 'optional IP geo' is vague—no parameter name is given—and the schema provides no structural hints, leaving room for ambiguity.
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 the tool performs domain enrichment by combining DNS/RDAP and optional IP geo. It names the resource (domain) and the specific enrichment types, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like whois_rdap or ip_info, which slightly reduces purpose clarity.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'cheap' as a differentiator but does not explicitly compare with whois_rdap or ip_info, nor state scenarios where this tool is preferred. There is no discussion of prerequisites or exclusions.
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.
Multiple tool pairs are exact duplicates (e.g., wallet_analysis/wallet_analyzer, honeypot_check/rugpull_detector, defi_yield/defi_yield_rates) with identical descriptions, and many overlapping scanners (squeeze_scanner variants). An agent cannot reliably distinguish these tools.
Names are all snake_case, but conventions vary wildly: some are resource names (btc_price), some are actions (list_magnets), some are generic utilities (calculator), and duplicates use different naming patterns for the same function (wallet_analysis vs wallet_analyzer). No consistent verb_noun or resource_action pattern.
139 tools is an extreme count for any MCP server, far exceeding the 50+ threshold. The scope is a grab-bag of unrelated domains (crypto, FDA, SEC, utilities, web scraping), suggesting no curation.
The set is a shallow pile of read-only queries and utilities with no lifecycle management for any one domain. Many sub-areas have only one or two tools, and duplicates occupy slots where distinct operations should be. The lack of a clear domain makes completeness impossible to assess, but the surface is redundant rather than comprehensive.