Get MX records and detect email provider (Google/Microsoft/Zoho/etc.). Use for B2B enrichment and email-deliverability checks.
Example call: {"domain": "openai.com"}
Cost: $0.005–$0.05 USDC on Base per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses cost ($0.005–$0.05) and provides an example call, but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or behavior for invalid domains. The cost disclosure is useful but not exhaustive.
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 extremely concise: three sentences covering purpose, usage, example, and cost. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.
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 only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, use case, example, and cost. It could optionally specify output structure, but the absence is not critical for this simple tool.
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 description coverage is 0%, but the description includes an example call ('{"domain": "openai.com"}') that clarifies the 'domain' parameter. No further details on format or constraints are given, so it adds modest value beyond the schema.
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 retrieves MX records and detects email providers, with specific examples (Google, Microsoft, Zoho). It also mentions use cases for B2B enrichment and email-deliverability checks, distinguishing it from other lookup tools.
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 provides explicit use cases ('B2B enrichment and email-deliverability checks'), giving context for when to use the tool. However, it does not specify when not to use it or contrast with alternative tools, such as other DNS lookups.
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.
The set is riddled with near-duplicates: lookup_reddit/scrape_reddit, lookup_wikipedia/scrape_wikipedia, lookup_dockerhub/scrape_dockerhub, lookup_steam/scrape_steam, enrich_googlereviews/enrich_reviews, lookup_ip/lookup_ipinfo, and multiple crypto-pricing tools (lookup_crypto, lookup_coingecko, bundle_crypto_360, scrape_binance, scrape_coinbase). Descriptions try to differentiate with phrases like 'heavier than' or 'same domain but with full thread parsing,' but the boundaries are fuzzy and an agent can easily pick the wrong one.
Naming follows a fairly consistent prefix-based snake_case pattern (lookup_, scrape_, enrich_, bundle_, search_, ai_, data_) where the prefix denotes action weight and the noun identifies the target. Minor deviations exist: posts_x, ai_ask/pro/ultra (model-tier names instead of resources), sslstatus (missing underscore), and lookup_useragents_top are slightly off-pattern.
172 tools is an extreme count, far beyond even the 50+ floor for a score of 1. This floods the agent's context and tool-selection space, making every call require a search through a massive list. While aggregation servers can justify more tools, this volume is unmanageable and every tool must be evaluated by the agent.
The surface is extraordinarily broad but unevenly deep: many sources have both a light lookup and a heavy scrape variant, while other areas have just a single shallow endpoint. There is no coherent domain with complete lifecycle coverage, and despite the huge catalog, common capabilities are still absent. The breadth prevents obvious gaps, but depth and coherence suffer.