TLDers Domain Prices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the lookup chain (RDAP with WHOIS fallback) and the failure-mode semantics (available is null when the registry is unreachable). It does not cover rate limits, latency, or whether other fields are returned on success.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, front-loading what the tool does and following with the notable edge case. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on return-value duty and does disclose the tri-state 'available' field, but it leaves the success-path response shape, domain format expectations, and any rate/permission constraints unstated for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 coverage is 0% for the single 'domain' parameter, so the description must compensate. 'Full domain name' hints that a complete name (e.g., example.com) is expected rather than a bare TLD, but no format example or normalization rule is given.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: a live availability check for a full domain name, with the lookup mechanism (RDAP, WHOIS fallback) named. The 'full domain name' scope implicitly separates it from the TLD-level siblings (compare_tlds, get_tld_prices), but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'full domain name' — check one concrete domain rather than browsing TLD pricing — but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives like compare_tlds.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals nothing about whether this is a read-only lookup, how pricing data is sourced or cached, what currency/registrar coverage exists, or what the comparison output looks like — 'side by side' is the only structural hint.

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?

A single tight sentence with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably too sparse for the amount of ambiguity surrounding sibling selection.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is minimally adequate: the agent knows what it compares and the size cap. It is missing usage routing against siblings and any sense of the returned comparison structure, which keeps it at the minimum viable level.

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 coverage is 0% for the single 'tlds' array parameter. The description partially compensates by clarifying that the array items are extensions and that the practical limit is 20, which matches the schema's maxItems, but it adds no format guidance (e.g. leading dot, case).

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?

States a specific verb (compare) and resource (registrar prices) with a clear scope qualifier (up to 20 extensions side by side). It is distinguishable from find_cheapest_tlds, but it never explicitly names how it differs from siblings like get_tld_prices, so it stops short of full 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, despite a crowded sibling set (get_tld_prices, find_cheapest_tlds, get_tld_price_history). An agent must infer that this is the batch side-by-side option purely from the word 'compare'.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the pricing dimensions exposed (first-year, renewal, transfer, 3-year total) and the currency unit (USD/year), which is genuinely useful context. It says nothing about result ordering, pagination/limit behavior, or data freshness, so it is helpful but incomplete.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the resource and scope, then enumerates the price types. No filler, though packing four price dimensions into one clause makes it slightly dense at the expense of readability.

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 zero-required-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the broad shape of the response but omits the sort/filter semantics that are undocumented in the schema and never differentiates the tool from its three price-related siblings. Adequate, but a clear gap remains for selection guidance.

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 coverage is 50% — q and type are documented in the schema, while sort (enum) and limit (defaults 20, max 100) carry no description anywhere. The description contributes only the USD/year unit, which is a meaningful but partial compensation for the undocumented filter/sort parameters.

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?

States a clear verb+resource ('List domain extensions (TLDs)') and specifies the payload precisely: cheapest registrar for first-year, renewal, transfer and 3-year total. An agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from price-oriented siblings such as get_tld_prices or compare_tlds.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'cheapest' — the agent can infer this is the ranking/price-comparison view, but no when-to-use condition or alternative (compare_tlds, get_tld_prices, get_tld_price_history) is named. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It tells us the data is per-registrar and covers both registration and renewal fees, which is useful, but says nothing about the time depth of the history, granularity, pagination, or whether auth is required.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no waste, and the key scope qualifiers ('per-registrar', 'one extension') are front-loaded. It is arguably too terse for the amount it leaves unsaid, but it is structurally sound.

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 history tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should describe the temporal scope or return shape. It names the fields returned but leaves the critical 'history' dimension (how far back, what intervals) undefined.

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 0%, so the single 'tld' parameter is undocumented in structured form. The description partially compensates by clarifying that the input is 'one extension', which maps the bare parameter name to a TLD string, but adds no format or validity detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: registration and renewal price history, scoped per registrar and to one extension. The word 'history' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling get_tld_prices (current prices), though that contrast is never made explicit.

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 on when to use this over get_tld_prices, compare_tlds, or find_cheapest_tlds. The 'history' framing hints at a temporal use case, but the agent is left to infer it from the name alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return shape ('cheapest first, plus average and median'), which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about currency, data freshness, or coverage gaps across registrars.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and scope, then the ordering and aggregates. No filler, nothing to trim.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned (all registrars, three price types, sorted ascending, plus average/median). Minor gaps remain around currency and the fields per registrar entry.

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 0% and the single parameter has no description, so the description must compensate. It does so by giving concrete example values ('com', 'io', 'co.in'), which clarifies the expected format, though it leaves ambiguous details like case-sensitivity or leading dots unaddressed.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('current register / renew / transfer price') scoped to a single extension, and the examples ('com', 'io', 'co.in') make the domain concrete. The 'for one extension' phrasing implicitly distinguishes it from multi-TLD siblings like compare_tlds, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives (compare_tlds, find_cheapest_tlds, get_tld_price_history) are referenced. The agent must infer from the 'one extension' scope that this is the single-TLD lookup, which is thin guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose useful traits beyond the name: it filters to active codes only and sorts by discount descending. However, it says nothing about whether codes expire, have usage limits, require an account, or how results are framed, which matters for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single tight sentence fragment with the scope ('currently active'), resource, and sort order front-loaded. Every word earns its place and there is no redundancy.

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, read-only listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description conveys the essentials: what is returned, which subset, and in what order. The main gap is the undocumented limit behavior, which is minor at this complexity level.

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 0% and the sole parameter (limit, default 25, max 100) is never mentioned in the description. Since coverage is low, the description was expected to compensate and does not, leaving the agent to infer paging/truncation behavior from the raw schema alone.

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 names a specific resource (registrar promo/coupon codes), narrows it to 'currently active', and states the ordering ('biggest discount first'), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but no sibling (pricing, availability, registrar listing) overlaps this content.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is clearly for looking up promo codes, but there is no statement of when to prefer it, what prerequisites apply, or how it relates to sibling tools such as get_tld_prices. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does communicate what data is returned (WHOIS-privacy info and TLD counts), but it does not state that this is a read-only list operation, mention pagination, rate limits, or auth requirements. For a simple no-param list tool, the added return-content detail is useful but incomplete.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is slightly awkward as a fragment rather than a complete sentence, but it remains efficient and readable.

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 low complexity, zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies the key return-value information an agent would need. It could add a brief note about read-only behavior or output shape, but it is adequate for this simple listing tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so per the scoring baseline the parameter semantics score is 4. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters.

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 identifies the resource precisely: 'every domain registrar TLDers tracks,' with WHOIS-privacy info and tracked TLD counts. This distinguishes it from TLD-focused siblings like get_tld_prices and compare_tlds. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'list,' but the name supplies that and the scope is clear.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative tools. For a zero-param list tool the intended usage is largely self-evident, but the description does not explicitly route the agent or state context.

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