Vältgeist Domains

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It describes the analytical insight but does not explain side effects, permissions, or output format. Since the tool has no parameters, the agent might expect a simple data return, but the lack of output schema and any mention of result structure leaves ambiguity.

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 two sentences. The first sentence explains the core metric, and the second adds practical applications. It is front-loaded and compact, though the first sentence is slightly jargon-heavy. Still, it earns its place with no wasted words.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description outlines the data dimensions (appraisal band, auction closing proximity) and use cases. However, it does not specify the output format (e.g., table, chart) or whether results are aggregated per band. Given low complexity, it is decent but not fully 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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description meets that.

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 provides information on how bid rates vary by GoDaddy appraisal band and auction closing proximity. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_auctions, lookup_domain, market_stats, and tld_stats by focusing specifically on bid rates in relation to appraisal bands.

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 mentions two use cases: judging whether an appraisal is meaningful at a given value and telling domain owners if their listing is in a band where trades occur. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, the context is clear enough for the agent to decide.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it clarifies that only auctions with at least one bid are returned, that closed auctions are excluded, and outlines sorting and filtering behaviors. It could mention pagination or rate limits, but for a read-only list tool, this is strong.

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 three concise sentences, each adding essential information: what is listed, how to sort, how to filter. No wasted words, and the most critical line ('auctions with at least one bid') comes first.

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 zero required parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity with 4 parameters and a filter, the description covers the key facets (live, bidding, sorting, filtering, exclusion). It lacks explicit mention of pagination or that the default sort is 'closing', but overall is nearly complete for an agent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds context about sorting options ('soonest closing, most bids...') and filter behavior ('only auctions at or below this price'), but does not add new parameter semantics beyond enumerating the sort options.

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 uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('live GoDaddy auctions'), and clearly scopes to auctions with at least one bid. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'lookup_domain' or 'market_stats' by focusing on live auctions with active bids.

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 states the tool is for finding auctions that are closing soon, have many bids, or good value, and that closed auctions are excluded. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context from siblings and the specific criteria imply appropriate use.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool only covers GoDaddy auctions, the types of data returned (appraisal, price, bid count, close time), and the caveat about 'not listed' not indicating registration status. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or error handling, but the core behavioral scope is well covered.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: function and return values, usage guidance, and scope clarification. No redundant or extraneous words; information is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately explains what it returns and its limitations. It could be more complete by mentioning that the domain must be valid or noting response format, but it sufficiently covers the essential information for an agent to use it correctly.

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 the 'domain' parameter described as 'Full domain, e.g. example.com'. The description adds that the tool checks if the domain is listed, which reinforces the purpose but does not add new semantic details beyond the schema. 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 states the tool checks a specific domain for listing in GoDaddy auctions and returns appraisal, price, bid count, and close time. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_auctions' (lists auctions) and 'bid_rates' (rates), as it focuses on a single domain lookup.

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 advises to use this tool before suggesting a domain name, ensuring the suggestion is purchasable. It also clarifies the scope (GoDaddy auctions only) and the limitation that a 'not listed' result does not imply availability elsewhere. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses key behavioral traits: the sell-through figure is an upper bound (not a rate) because withdrawals appear as sales, and it warns against misinterpreting it as a probability. This is valuable transparency beyond a simple listing.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The purpose is stated first, followed by the list of metrics and a critical caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the main metrics and clarifies the tricky sell-through interpretation. It could be more explicit about the exact field names or data types, but for a simple aggregate snapshot, the coverage is sufficient.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds meaning by explaining what the output metrics represent, which is sufficient for this parameterless tool.

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 specifies a clear verb ('provides headline figures') and resource ('GoDaddy auction market today'), and lists concrete metrics (domains listed, with bids, median appraisal, sell-through ceiling). It is distinct from sibling tools like bid_rates or list_auctions, which focus on rates or individual auctions.

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 implies the tool is for a quick market snapshot, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., bid_rates for detailed rates, lookup_domain for a single domain). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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

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

The description discloses a key behavior: results are filtered to extensions with at least 400 listings. It also frames output as actionable (attract bidders vs dead inventory). However, with no annotations, it does not cover aspects like data freshness, performance, or that the tool is read-only, leaving some behavioral traits unspecified.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core function and condition, the second adds interpretive value. Well 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 no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the output (bid rate and average appraisal per TLD) and the minimum listing threshold. Minor gap: it does not enumerate the exact fields returned, but this is acceptable for a simple, no-parameter 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 coverage is 100% with no parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool returns (bid rate, average appraisal) and the filtering threshold, going beyond the empty 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 provides 'bid rate and average appraisal for each domain extension with at least 400 listings.' It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource (domain extensions), distinguishing it from sibling tools like bid_rates (likely per-domain) and market_stats (general statistics).

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 implies usage for assessing TLD performance and identifying active vs dead inventory, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide any exclusions. With no parameters, the context is straightforward, but explicit guidance is missing.

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