tld_price_changesAnnounced registry (wholesale) price increases, upcoming and from the past year, plus changes to registrar standard prices seen in TLDMath’s daily checks. Use for "is .com going up?" or "should I renew early?". Optionally filter by TLD.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tld | No | Limit to one TLD, e.g. "com". Omit for all. | |
| days | No | How far back to look for registrar price changes. Default 30. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those hints: it specifies the time window (upcoming and past year), the data source (TLDMath daily checks), and the distinction between registry wholesale and registrar standard prices. This gives an agent a reliable sense of what information the tool covers.
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 two sentences, immediately states what the tool reports, provides memorable usage examples, and ends with the optional filter. Every part earns its place and no filler is present.
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 read-only lookup with two optional, well-documented parameters, the description is largely complete: it defines data scope, source, relevance, and an optional filter. It does not describe the return shape, but given no output schema and the simple nature of the tool, that is a minor gap rather than a blocking omission.
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 has 100% description coverage, with both tld and days clearly documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small reminder that TLD filtering is optional, but it does not need to explain parameters further because the schema already carries that burden effectively.
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 identifies a specific resource—domain price changes—and distinguishes the content: announced registry wholesale increases, upcoming and past-year changes, plus registrar standard price changes observed by TLDMath. This differentiates it from siblings like compare_tld_prices, which logically focuses on current price comparison rather than changes over time.
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 gives concrete use cases ('is .com going up?' or 'should I renew early?') and notes optional TLD filtering, giving an agent clear context for when to call this tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full exclusion guidance.
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.