audit.domains - Domain Valuation

Find comparable recorded sales

find_comparable_sales

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return up to five comparable recorded domain sales from a cached appraisal or authorized fresh run, each with price range, year, venue, similarity score and match basis. These are transactions from a curated corpus, not modelled figures. Use appraise_domain for a fair value and search_recorded_sales to browse sales. Cache hits use no API credits; keyless catalog fallback may contain no comparables and links to the browser report. A default-profile cache miss with an authorized write-scope paid key (HTTP header Authorization: Bearer ad_live_...) can consume one API credit even for a catalog name, subject to allowance, rate limits and server budget. Rejected keyed runs can return an error.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	The one domain name to find comparable recorded sales for, such as example.com.

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`. A stored interval also has no ODVS record: its artifact digest is provenance, not a standalone proof of these projected fields.
`domain`	Yes
`citation`	Yes
`nextStep`	No	One line on what to do next when no figure was computed.
`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.
`nearestCatalog`	No	Up to 3 published catalog names nearest the requested one, with their catalog figures. Context for the user, never the requested name's value.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 15, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / citeAs / description

Previous value: -"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`."New value: +"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`. A stored interval also has no ODVS record: its artifact digest is provenance, not a standalone proof of these projected fields."

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 6, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / domain / description

Previous value: -"The domain name to find comparable recorded sales for."New value: +"The one domain name to find comparable recorded sales for, such as example.com."

addedOutput schema / properties / nearestCatalog

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Up to 3 published catalog names nearest the requested one, with their catalog figures. Context for the user, never the requested name's value.",
+  "items": {
+    "properties": {
+      "basis": {
+        "description": "Why it was picked.",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "domain": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "fairUsd": {
+        "type": "number"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "domain",
+      "fairUsd",
+      "basis"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / nextStep

Added value: +{
+  "description": "One line on what to do next when no figure was computed.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

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

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: cache hits consume no credits, the keyless catalog fallback may be empty and links to a browser report, a default-profile cache miss with an authorized Bearer key can burn one API credit, and rejected keyed runs can error. This is the credit/auth/error profile an agent cannot infer from 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?

Front-loaded with the return contract, then alternatives, then cost/auth caveats. Dense and nearly waste-free, though the credit/cache sentence chains several conditions ('subject to allowance, rate limits and server budget') into one long clause that is harder to parse than the rest.

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?

Complete for this tool: return fields are enumerated (and an output schema exists anyway), the sibling routing is explicit, and the cost, auth-header, fallback and error behaviors are all covered. Nothing an agent needs to decide or invoke it 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The one domain name to find comparable recorded sales for, such as example.com'), so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description only indirectly touches the parameter, noting catalog names can still incur a credit on a miss.

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 and resource ('Return up to five comparable recorded domain sales') and immediately disambiguates scope: 'These are transactions from a curated corpus, not modelled figures.' It explicitly contrasts itself with appraise_domain and search_recorded_sales, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without opening any 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?

Names the two adjacent tools and the condition that selects each: 'Use appraise_domain for a fair value and search_recorded_sales to browse sales.' It also states the preconditions for a fresh keyed run (authorized write-scope paid key, allowance, budget) versus a free cache hit, which is exactly the routing information an agent needs.

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?