verify_email_demoVerify one email address with NO account or API key, so you can evaluate Verifly before registering. Rate-limited per IP (a few checks). Returns the same deliverability verdict and flags as the full API. For real volume, call register_account for a key + 100 free credits, then use verify_email.
| 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 provided, the description discloses rate-limiting per IP and that it returns the same verdict as the full API. However, the rate limit is vaguely described as 'a few checks', which could be more precise.
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?
The description is concise with no extraneous words, front-loading the key value proposition (no account required). Every sentence adds value.
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?
Given no output schema, the description states the return matches the full API, providing adequate context. It could elaborate on the verdict format, but for a demo tool with a single parameter, it is fairly complete.
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?
The sole parameter 'email' has schema description 'The email address to verify, e.g. lead@example.com'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, and schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 without an account or API key, distinguishing it from the sibling verify_email tool that requires a key. The verb 'Verify' and resource 'one email address' are specific.
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?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool (free demo, no key) and when not to (for real volume), and provides an alternative: register_account for a key then use verify_email.
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.