validate_ipCheck whether an IP address (IPv4 or IPv6) is a genuine Baiduspider IP address, verified against Baiduspider's published IP data on seoapi.com.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | Yes | The IPv4 or IPv6 address to validate |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It confirms the tool is read-only and references external data, but does not mention network dependency, rate limits, or caching, which are relevant for a validation tool.
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 a single, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It conveys all essential information efficiently.
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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no siblings), the description is mostly complete. However, it could mention the expected return format (e.g., boolean or validation status) for full clarity.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% (the 'ip' parameter has a description). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score applies.
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 checks whether an IP is a genuine Baiduspider IP, verified against published data. It is specific and unambiguous.
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 tells the user to use this tool for verifying Baiduspider IPs. With no sibling tools, explicit when-not is unnecessary, but mentioning alternatives or prerequisites would improve clarity.
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.
Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion with other tools.
The single tool name 'validate_ip' follows a clear verb_noun pattern, which is entirely consistent.
The server has a very narrow purpose—validating Baiduspider IPs—and one tool is exactly appropriate for that scope.
The tool fully covers the stated domain: validating Baiduspider IP addresses. There are no other operations needed for this specific purpose.