validate_ipCheck whether an IP address (IPv4 or IPv6) is a genuine YandexBot IP address, verified against YandexBot'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 carries full burden. It states the action (check against published data) but does not disclose return format (e.g., boolean), error handling, rate limits, or external dependency behavior. For a simple validation, the information is minimally adequate.
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 that front-loads the key action and source. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant information. Excellent conciseness.
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 required parameter, no output schema, no sibling tools), the description is largely complete: it specifies input type and verification source. Minor gaps include missing details on return type and error behavior, but these are not critical for basic usage.
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 itself has 100% description coverage (the 'ip' parameter is described as 'The IPv4 or IPv6 address to validate'). The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 validates IP addresses (IPv4 or IPv6) against YandexBot's published IP data, specifying both the resource (IP) and the specific verification source (seoapi.com). This precisely defines the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from generic IP validation tools.
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 usage when needing to confirm an IP is a genuine YandexBot IP, but no explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool versus alternatives is provided. Since there are no sibling tools, the lack of comparative context reduces the score.
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 risk of confusion or ambiguity between tools.
The single tool follows a clear verb_noun pattern (validate_ip), consistent with good naming practices.
While a single tool is minimal, it serves a very narrow and specific purpose (validating YandexBot IPs), so it is borderline appropriate but feels thin.
For the stated purpose of verifying YandexBot IPs, the single tool fully covers the required functionality.