Get the status of a domain purchase order.
Polls the backend every 3 seconds (up to 120 seconds) until the order reaches a terminal state (complete or failed).
Args: order_id: The order ID returned from buy_domain (e.g. "ord_abc123").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly discloses polling every 3 seconds up to 120 seconds until terminal states (complete or failed). This is valuable behavioral detail beyond just 'get status.' However, it doesn't specify behavior on timeout after 120s or error handling, leaving some 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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes only essential information: the purpose, polling behavior, and parameter explanation. No redundant sentences or vague filler.
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 a simple single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: polling, timeout limit, terminal states. It doesn't explain what happens if the order doesn't reach a terminal state within 120 seconds, but the presence of an output schema likely documents return values. The overall context is sufficiently complete 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?
The schema only defines order_id as a string, but the description adds crucial semantics: it is 'The order ID returned from buy_domain' with an example format 'ord_abc123'. This fully explains the parameter's origin and format, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.
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 opens with a specific verb+resource phrase: 'Get the status of a domain purchase order.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like check_domain (which checks domain availability) and buy_domain (which initiates purchases) by focusing on order status. The polling behavior further clarifies its role.
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 after buy_domain by stating the order_id comes from buy_domain, e.g. 'ord_abc123'. It provides context that this is for tracking purchase order progress, which implies not for domain availability checks. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or mention of alternative tools for different scenarios.
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.