get_tld_price_historyPer-registrar registration and renewal price history for one extension.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tld | Yes | ||
| api_key | No | Your TLDers API key. Only needed if your client cannot send an Authorization header or use a ?key= URL. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / api_keyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Your TLDers API key. Only needed if your client cannot send an Authorization header or use a ?key= URL.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are per-registrar and cover both registration and renewal fees, but says nothing about time span, sampling granularity, or how much history is returned.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with no redundant restatement of the title or name. 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 history tool with no output schema, the description should convey the temporal scope (range, granularity, ordering) since the agent cannot learn it from structured fields. It conveys what dimensions exist (registrar, registration/renewal) but not the time dimension that 'history' implies.
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 50%: api_key is documented in the schema, but tld has no description. The phrase 'for one extension' partially compensates by signaling that tld accepts a single extension rather than a list, but no format guidance (with or without leading dot) 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?
Specific verb-resource pairing: it returns per-registrar registration and renewal price history for one extension, which is more precise than the title alone. However it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_tld_prices or compare_tlds, so an agent can't tell 'history' from 'current prices' without reading the schemas.
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 explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no pointer to the closest alternative (get_tld_prices for current prices vs this for history). The agent must infer the distinction from the name.
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.