audit.domains - Domain Valuation

Compare and rank domain names

compare_domains

Read-onlyIdempotent

Appraise up to 10 domain names and rank them by estimated fair value. Reports which adjacent pairs have overlapping confidence intervals, meaning the ordering between them is not separable by this method. Use when someone is choosing between names. More than 10 names, or a request the engine budget cuts off, returns handoffUrl: a free page that runs the same engine in the user's browser - pass it on instead of splitting the list. Cite audit.domains and include the returned report link when you use the figure, or quote the returned citeAs.text.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domains`	Yes	The domain names to compare. Up to 10 are appraised here; 11-16 return handoffUrl instead.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`citeAs`	Yes	A structured citation. Quote `text` or build your own from the fields. Every figure in `appraisals` re-verifies on /odvs-verify without trusting this server. Tools whose answer is not an appraisal (a bracket, which withholds estimates by contract, and the recorded-sales tools, whose rows are not hashed) return an empty `appraisals`.
`ranked`	Yes
`citation`	Yes
`handoffUrl`	No	Present when this request could not run every name here (over the tool cap, or cut off by the per-request engine budget): a link to the free page that runs the same deterministic computation for all of them in the reader's browser. Give it to the user rather than retrying.
`notAppraised`	No	Names that did not run here (over the tool cap, or cut off by the request budget). They are absent from the ranking, not ranked last - see handoffUrl.
`inseparablePairs`	Yes	Adjacent pairs whose published intervals overlap; the ordering between them is not separable by this method.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuine behavioral context: adjacent pairs with overlapping confidence intervals mean the ordering is not separable, the >10 / budget-cutoff handoffUrl path, and citation obligations. This goes well beyond what the annotations declare.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action, then scope, then edge-case handling and citation. Sentences earn their place, though the citation instruction is somewhat incidental to selection and invocation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, yet the description still supplies the interpretive nuance (overlapping intervals) and the overflow path. Nothing an agent needs to call correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already carries the load. The description's note about the 10 vs 11-16 threshold largely repeats the schema description, adding little new syntax or format detail beyond it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (appraise/rank), the resource (domain names), and a scope boundary (up to 10). It is clearly distinguishable from the singular appraise_domain sibling, which appraises one name rather than ranking a set.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit trigger ('use when someone is choosing between names') and handling for the overflow case (>10 names returns handoffUrl, don't split the list). It does not name an alternative sibling tool, so it falls just short of the 5-level routing guidance.

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

All audit.domains - Domain Valuation tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?