Stablecoin Gateways

WHOIS RDAP Domain Lookup

whois

Read-onlyIdempotent

WHOIS / RDAP domain lookup: give a domain, get registrar, registration (creation), expiry and last-updated dates, status codes and nameservers from the registry's RDAP service, plus DNS records and SPF/DMARC/DKIM email-auth posture. Use to check a domain's age, registrar or expiry before trusting a merchant, vendor or counterparty. No personal data. Signed receipt. Price: $0.003 per call via x402 (USDC on Base or XRP on XRPL). The response includes a provenance block (sg-provenance/1): each fact carries its source, source URL, retrieval time and limits; evidence only, no score, rating or verdict. Example arguments: {"domain":"example.com"}.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "whois"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Registrable domain or full hostname

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No	Registry RDAP registrar, creation/expiry/update dates, status and nameservers, plus DNS and email-auth facts
`receipt`	No	Ed25519-signed, hash-chained receipt; verify free with the verify_receipt tool or POST /v1/verify-receipt. New receipts carry a signed `evidence` object: service_version, data_timestamp, validation, terms_version, terms_hash, provenance_hash.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 24, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / provenance

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The response includes a `provenance` block (sg-provenance/1): each fact carries its source, source URL, retrieval time and limits; evidence only, no score, rating or verdict."
+}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 24, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / receipt / description

Previous value: -"Ed25519-signed, hash-chained receipt; verify free with the verify_receipt tool or POST /v1/verify-receipt"New value: +"Ed25519-signed, hash-chained receipt; verify free with the verify_receipt tool or POST /v1/verify-receipt. New receipts carry a signed `evidence` object: service_version, data_timestamp, validation, terms_version, terms_hash, provenance_hash."

Changed1 schema field changedOct 22, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "Paid result: { data, receipt }. Unpaid calls return an x402 PaymentRequired object instead (isError: true).",
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "description": "Registry RDAP registrar, creation/expiry/update dates, status and nameservers, plus DNS and email-auth facts",
+      "properties": {
+        "checked_at": {},
+        "dns": {},
+        "domain": {},
+        "exists": {},
+        "https": {},
+        "mail_auth": {},
+        "notes": {},
+        "rdap": {},
+        "sources": {}
+      }
+    },
+    "receipt": {
+      "description": "Ed25519-signed, hash-chained receipt; verify free with the verify_receipt tool or POST /v1/verify-receipt"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/openWorld) by disclosing data boundaries ("No personal data"), a signed receipt, per-call pricing and payment rails, and the shape of the `provenance` block including the explicit caveat "evidence only, no score, rating or verdict." That is exactly the kind of output/behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by returned fields, usage trigger, and then caveats. The pricing and provenance sentences are dense but earn their place; the run-on first sentence could be split for scanability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given an output schema exists, the description needn't explain return values, yet it still flags the provenance block's semantics — the one part of the output an agent could misread as a verdict. Cost, data limits, invocation form and usage trigger are all covered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully described as "Registrable domain or full hostname" with a pattern. The description adds only an example argument {"domain":"example.com"}, which weakly illustrates canonical form but adds little semantic meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource (WHOIS/RDAP domain lookup) and enumerates the returned facts: registrar, creation/expiry/update dates, status codes, nameservers, DNS records and SPF/DMARC/DKIM posture. An agent can tell this apart from sanctions_screen or merchant_check, but the very close sibling `domain_facts` is never mentioned, so differentiation from that tool is left to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Use to check a domain's age, registrar or expiry before trusting a merchant, vendor or counterparty" gives a clear triggering situation. It offers no exclusions or named alternatives (domain_facts, merchant_check, counterparty_check), so the agent must infer when this is the wrong sibling to pick.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Stablecoin Gateways tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?