audit.domains - Domain Valuation

Find comparable recorded sales

find_comparable_sales

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return the five recorded domain sales closest to a given name, with a price range, year, venue, a similarity score and the match basis stating why each sale was selected. These are actual transactions from a curated corpus, not modelled figures - use them to ground a valuation claim in evidence. For broader market questions use search_recorded_sales instead. 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
`domain`	Yes	The domain name to find comparable recorded sales for.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`comps`	Yes
`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`.
`domain`	Yes
`citation`	Yes
`reportUrl`	Yes
`notAppraised`	No	Present when comparables were not computed on this server. Not an error: reportUrl runs the same engine in the reader's browser.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 30, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / notAppraised

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Present when comparables were not computed on this server. Not an error: reportUrl runs the same engine in the reader's browser.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

First observedSep 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description goes further by disclosing result cardinality (exactly five), the provenance of the data ('actual transactions from a curated corpus, not modelled figures'), and a mandatory citation obligation with citeAs.text - useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is returned before provenance, sibling routing and citation instructions. Each sentence earns its place, though the citation/dedup instruction adds length that could be tightened.

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 not be re-explained, and the description still covers provenance, cardinality, usage routing and citation requirements. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and correctly report this tool 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The domain name to find comparable recorded sales for'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description implies the input is a name but adds no format, normalization, or edge-case guidance beyond the schema, which is the baseline for full coverage.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Return the five recorded domain sales closest to a given name') and enumerates the returned fields (price range, year, venue, similarity score, match basis). It also distinguishes itself from search_recorded_sales, so an agent can separate it from siblings without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It states both when to use it ('use them to ground a valuation claim in evidence') and when not to ('For broader market questions use search_recorded_sales instead'), naming the alternative tool explicitly. This is a complete routing rule.

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?