verify_emailVerify one email address in real time. Returns a deliverability verdict (valid / invalid / risky / unknown), the reason, detailed flags (disposable, role account, catch-all, MX, SMTP), a send/reject recommendation, and credit usage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | The email address to verify, e.g. lead@example.com |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description provides substantial behavioral context: real-time processing, return of verdict, flags, and credit usage. Absence of rate limits or auth needs is acceptable for a simple 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?
A single sentence that efficiently conveys the action and outputs, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate sections for inputs/outputs).
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers return values and real-time behavior. Lacks mention of error handling or edge cases, but adequate for the tool's simplicity.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description of the 'email' parameter. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score applies.
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 verifies one email in real time and lists specific outputs (deliverability verdict, flags, recommendation), distinguishing it from batch tools like verify_batch and verify_email_demo.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, though sibling tools exist (e.g., verify_batch for batch, check_domain_health for domains). The description implies real-time single verification, but lacks explicit context.
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. Overlaps like verify_batch vs submit_bulk are explicitly differentiated by synchronous vs asynchronous behavior. Extraction, cleaning, verification, and management tools are well-separated.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., register_account, verify_email, get_job_status). There is no mixing of conventions or vague verbs.
15 tools cover the domain of email verification and account management without redundancy. Each tool fills a specific role—single verification, batch sync, bulk async, job polling, results retrieval, list cleaning, extraction, domain health, credit purchasing, and account management.
The tool set provides complete lifecycle coverage: account registration, usage tracking, credit purchase, email verification (single, batch, bulk with async), job management, list cleaning, email extraction, and domain health checks. No obvious gaps for the intended functionality.