get_tld_pricesEvery registrar’s current register / renew / transfer price for one extension (e.g. "com", "io", "co.in"), cheapest first, plus average and median.
| 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 and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that results are sorted cheapest-first and include average/median aggregates, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or coverage breadth of 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. Every clause carries information; no filler.
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 usefully describes what is returned (per-registrar prices plus averages/medians). Remaining gaps are minor: currency, number of registrars, and pagination behavior are unstated, but not essential to invoke correctly.
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% (api_key documented, tld not). The description compensates by giving concrete format examples for the required tld ('com', 'io', 'co.in'), which clarifies the expected input beyond the bare string type in the schema.
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 ('current register / renew / transfer price for one extension') plus scope and ordering ('cheapest first, plus average and median'). The 'one extension' framing cleanly distinguishes it from compare_tlds and find_cheapest_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 implied by 'for one extension' versus the multi-TLD siblings, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative. An agent must infer the routing from the scope phrase alone.
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.