list_servicesThe paid catalogue: what each service covers, what it costs, and the exact URL where a customer orders. Include your referral code in the order URL to be paid for the referral.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains the tool provides a paid catalogue and instructs users to include a referral code in order URLs for compensation, adding behavioral context beyond the name. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects or limitations, though none are apparent for a listing tool.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence provides an actionable detail. No fluff.
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 no-parameter list tool, the description fully explains what data is returned (coverage, cost, order URL) and includes the key referral instruction. Even without an output schema, the description is sufficient.
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, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds some context about the referral code but no parameter-specific details are needed.
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 states the tool lists paid services with coverage, cost, and order URLs. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('services'), and the title reinforces the purpose. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on the paid catalogue.
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 implies the tool is used to browse the paid catalogue, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives. No exclusions or when-not 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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: one checks domains, one lists paid services, one explains the partner program, and one registers a referral code. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Three of four tools follow the verb_noun pattern (check_domain, list_services, register_referral), but partner_program is a noun_noun name without an action verb. This is a minor deviation that does not cause confusion.
Four tools is well-scoped for the server's purpose: one core domain-checking tool plus three supporting tools for its referral monetization model. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.
The core domain-check workflow is fully covered, and the referral flow includes registration, catalog, and program details. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to track referral earnings or history, but this is not essential for the primary domain-check function.