audit.domains - Domain Valuation

Quote a domain purchase

quote_domain_purchase

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the live price, protection terms and requirements for buying one listed domain, plus the checkout link to give the cardholder. Use read_for_sale_dns instead for a name that may not be listed here, and get_seller_listing for the seller's own view of a listing. Read-only. Never reveals the seller's floor and never evaluates an offer. Payment is a held card authorization on the seller's own account; the site brokers no sale. Only listed domains can be quoted.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	The listed domain name to quote, such as example.com.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`domain`	Yes
`escrow`	No
`verify`	No
`checkout`	No
`appraisal`	No	Null when listed by DNS.
`available`	Yes	False when the sale needs escrow, not card checkout.
`checkedAt`	No
`priceCents`	Yes
`protection`	No
`checkoutUrl`	Yes	Give this to the cardholder.
`acceptsOffers`	No
`buyerPaysCents`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 6, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / domain / description

Previous value: -"A domain name such as example.com."New value: +"The listed domain name to quote, such as example.com."

addedOutput schema / properties

Added value: +{
+  "acceptsOffers": {
+    "type": "boolean"
+  },
+  "appraisal": {
+    "description": "Null when listed by DNS.",
+    "properties": {
+      "fairUsd": {
+        "type": "number"
+      },
+      "highUsd": {
+        "type": "number"
+      },
+      "lowUsd": {
+        "type": "number"
+      },
+      "priceToFairRatio": {
+        "type": "number"
+      }
+    },
+    "type": [
+      "object",
+      "null"
+    ]
+  },
+  "available": {
+    "description": "False when the sale needs escrow, not card checkout.",
+    "type": "boolean"
+  },
+  "buyerPaysCents": {
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  "checkedAt": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "checkout": {
+    "properties": {
+      "method": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "url": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "checkoutUrl": {
+    "description": "Give this to the cardholder.",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "domain": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "escrow": {
+    "type": [
+      "object",
+      "null"
+    ]
+  },
+  "priceCents": {
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  "protection": {
+    "properties": {
+      "autoReleaseCapCents": {
+        "type": "integer"
+      },
+      "holdDays": {
+        "type": "integer"
+      }
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "verify": {
+    "type": [
+      "object",
+      "null"
+    ]
+  }
+}

addedOutput schema / required

Added value: +[
+  "domain",
+  "available",
+  "priceCents",
+  "buyerPaysCents",
+  "checkoutUrl"
+]

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 grant readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered, yet the description still adds real behavioral context: it never reveals the seller's floor, never evaluates an offer, and payment is a held card authorization on the seller's own account with the site brokering no sale. 'Read-only' is a mild restatement of readOnlyHint, keeping it just short of 5.

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 payoff (price/terms/link) and then the routing and constraints, with no filler sentences. Slightly diluted by the redundant 'Read-only' clause that merely echoes the readOnlyHint annotation.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what comes back, who is eligible, the payment mechanism, and which sibling to pick when the precondition fails. Return-value structure is correctly left to the output schema.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% – the schema already documents 'domain' with an example. The description adds no format, TLD, or eligibility syntax beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 for full schema coverage applies.

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?

Specific verb (Quote/Get) plus resource (one listed domain) and an explicit enumeration of the returned payload: live price, protection terms, requirements, and checkout link. It also names two siblings (read_for_sale_dns, get_seller_listing) with the conditions that select them, so it is clearly separable from the rest of the toolset.

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?

Explicit routing is given ('Use read_for_sale_dns instead for a name that may not be listed here, and get_seller_listing for the seller's own view') plus the hard precondition 'Only listed domains can be quoted.' When-to-use, when-to-use-something-else, and the eligibility limit are all stated.

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?