validate_ipCheck whether an IP address (IPv4 or IPv6) is a genuine Naver Yeti IP address, verified against Naver Yeti'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?
The description hints at an external dependency ('verified against... published IP data on seoapi.com') but does not explicitly state that a network call is required, nor does it disclose potential issues like rate limits, latency, or error handling. Without annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short.
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-formed sentence that conveys all necessary information without any extraneous words. It is concise and front-loaded.
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?
For a simple validation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete in explaining the input and validation source. However, it fails to specify the return format (e.g., boolean, details), which is important context for the agent.
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 covers 100% of the parameter with a description that already includes 'IPv4 or IPv6'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 the tool's purpose: to check whether an IP address (IPv4 or IPv6) is a genuine Naver Yeti IP address, verified against published data. The verb 'Check' and the resource 'Naver Yeti IP address' are specific and unambiguous, even without sibling differentiation.
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 (when verification of Naver Yeti IP is needed) but does not provide explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tools. Since no sibling tools are listed, the lack of exclusions is acceptable, but explicit guidance would be better.
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.
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap. The tool's purpose is clear and distinct.
The single tool 'validate_ip' follows a consistent verb_noun naming pattern using snake_case, which is clear and standard.
A single tool server is very minimal. While it may be appropriate for a narrow utility, most servers benefit from multiple related tools to provide a more complete interface.
The tool accurately fulfills its described purpose of validating IP addresses against Naver Yeti's published data. No obvious gaps in that specific task, but the domain could support additional related tools.