Agent Margin Router

DNS + WHOIS

dns_whois

Read-only

DNS records (A, AAAA, MX, NS, TXT, CNAME, SOA, CAA) via DNS-over-HTTPS plus RDAP/WHOIS registration data (registrar, created/expires, status, nameservers, DNSSEC). Pay per call with USDC or USDT on Base via x402. 3 free calls per wallet.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`domain`	Yes	Domain name, e.g. example.com.
`wallet`	No	Your EVM wallet address (0x...). Unlocks the free tier (3 free calls per wallet).
`api_key`	No	Optional AMR enterprise API key.
`x_payment`	No	Optional signed x402 payment payload (base64 JSON) for USDC/USDT on Base.
`record_types`	No	Default A AAAA MX NS TXT CNAME.
`include_whois`	No	Include RDAP data (default true).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`token`	No	Token actually used for payment (USDC, USDT or FREE).	USDC
`whois`	No
`domain`	Yes
`errors`	No
`records`	Yes
`routing`	Yes	How the request was routed (provider, fallback, cache, latency).
`cost_usdc`	Yes	Price charged in stablecoin units (USDC/USDT 1:1); 0 on the free tier.
`fetched_at`	No	UTC timestamp when the data was fetched.
`freshness_seconds`	Yes	Age of the underlying data in seconds (0 = fetched live).
`x_payment_response`	No	Base64-encoded x402 settlement receipt (mirrors the X-PAYMENT-RESPONSE header). Only present when the call was paid with `x_payment`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 15, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "Response for ``POST /dns-whois``.",
+  "properties": {
+    "cost_usdc": {
+      "description": "Price charged in stablecoin units (USDC/USDT 1:1); 0 on the free tier.",
+      "title": "Cost Usdc",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "domain": {
+      "title": "Domain",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "errors": {
+      "additionalProperties": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "title": "Errors",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "fetched_at": {
+      "description": "UTC timestamp when the data was fetched.",
+      "format": "date-time",
+      "title": "Fetched At",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "freshness_seconds": {
+      "description": "Age of the underlying data in seconds (0 = fetched live).",
+      "title": "Freshness Seconds",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "records": {
+      "additionalProperties": {
+        "items": {
+          "additionalProperties": true,
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        "type": "array"
+      },
+      "title": "Records",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "routing": {
+      "description": "How the request was routed (provider, fallback, cache, latency).",
+      "properties": {
+        "cache_hit": {
+          "default": false,
+          "description": "True if the result was served from cache.",
+          "title": "Cache Hit",
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "fallback_used": {
+          "default": false,
+          "description": "True if the primary provider failed and a fallback served the result.",
+          "title": "Fallback Used",
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "latency_ms": {
+          "default": 0,
+          "description": "End-to-end routing latency in milliseconds.",
+          "title": "Latency Ms",
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "provider": {
+          "description": "Name of the upstream provider that served the result.",
+          "title": "Provider",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "providers_tried": {
+          "description": "Providers attempted, in order.",
+          "items": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "title": "Providers Tried",
+          "type": "array"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "provider"
+      ],
+      "title": "RoutingMeta",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "token": {
+      "default": "USDC",
+      "description": "Token actually used for payment (USDC, USDT or FREE).",
+      "title": "Token",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "whois": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "additionalProperties": true,
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "default": null,
+      "title": "Whois"
+    },
+    "x_payment_response": {
+      "description": "Base64-encoded x402 settlement receipt (mirrors the X-PAYMENT-RESPONSE header). Only present when the call was paid with `x_payment`.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "freshness_seconds",
+    "cost_usdc",
+    "routing",
+    "domain",
+    "records"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 13, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / include_whois / default
```
Added value: +true
```

changedInput schema / properties / wallet / description

Previous value: -"Your EVM wallet address (0x...). Unlocks the free tier (3 calls per wallet)."New value: +"Your EVM wallet address (0x...). Unlocks the free tier (3 free calls per wallet)."

AddedSep 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It adds valuable behavioral context: payment via USDC/USDT on Base, 3 free calls per wallet, and the underlying protocols (DNS-over-HTTPS, RDAP). It does not disclose failure modes or rate limits, but the added payment and free-tier details go 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no excessive detail. The first sentence lists capabilities, the second covers payment. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place. There is no fluff or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 6 parameters, output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns, payment requirements, and the free tier. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or error handling, but the output schema likely fills that gap. Given the high schema coverage and annotations, this is fairly complete, though a brief note on when to use this over dns_lookup/domain_rdap would make it perfect.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description adds meaning by listing the DNS record types and explaining RDAP/WHOIS data, which clarifies the purpose of record_types and include_whois. It doesn't just repeat schema definitions; it provides the domain context that helps the agent decide on parameter values.

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 clearly states it provides DNS records (specific types listed) via DNS-over-HTTPS plus RDAP/WHOIS registration data (registrar, dates, status, nameservers, DNSSEC). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dns_lookup and domain_rdap, which likely offer only one of these. The verb 'provide' and resource scope are explicit.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies a combined DNS+WHOIS use case but does not explicitly state when to choose this over dns_lookup or domain_rdap. It does mention payment requirements (pay per call, free tier) which is relevant context. However, no exclusions or alternatives are named, so it relies on the agent inferring that this is the combined option.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Agent Margin Router 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.