Check availability of up to 50 domain names in one call.
Uses fast RDAP lookups (no pricing). Returns a summary with total/available/taken counts plus per-domain details.
Args: domains: List of domain names to check (max 50).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domains | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 behavioral disclosure. It reveals that this is a read-only RDAP lookup ('no pricing'), clarifies it returns a summary with counts and per-domain details, and implicitly contrasts with purchase tools. It does not mention rate limits or error handling, but for a simple availability check, the provided transparency is solid.
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 and well-structured: it leads with the core purpose, adds a key behavioral detail (RDAP, no pricing), describes the return summary, and then provides a clear Args section. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.
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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It specifies the maximum domain count, the return summary structure, and the per-domain details. It doesn't cover edge cases like invalid domain formats or error behavior, but given the low complexity and presence of an output schema, it is adequate.
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 input schema only declares 'domains' as an array of strings with no description. The description compensates fully by explaining 'List of domain names to check (max 50)' and reiterating the 'up to 50' limit, adding meaning beyond the schema. This is critical because schema coverage is 0%.
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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Check availability of up to 50 domain names in one call.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as check_domain (single check) and buy_domain by emphasizing the bulk nature and the use of RDAP lookups without pricing.
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 context: use this for bulk availability checks ('up to 50 domain names in one call', 'fast RDAP lookups (no pricing)'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the bulk vs. single distinction is clear from the sibling list and the phrase 'in one call'.
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 targets a distinct action or payment method. The three buy tools are clearly differentiated by payment flow (Stripe checkout, crypto x402, Stripe MPP) with explicit guidance on when to use each. All other tools have unique purposes (check, status, renew, transfer).
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lowercase snake_case (e.g., check_domain, suggest_domains, verify_transfer_code). There are no mixed conventions or ambiguous prefixes.
With 12 tools, the set is well-scoped for a domain purchase and management service. Each tool covers a necessary step in the workflow (check, buy via 3 methods, status, renew, transfer), without unnecessary bloat.
The tool surface covers the core domain lifecycle: check availability, purchase (with multiple payment options), renew, and transfer (code request, verify, unlock). Minor gaps like listing owned domains or managing DNS are absent, but the primary use case is well-supported.