Get the EPP/transfer authorization code for a completed domain purchase.
Requires a transfer_token from verify_transfer_code.
Args: order_id: The order ID of a completed domain purchase. transfer_token: Token returned by verify_transfer_code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order_id | Yes | ||
| transfer_token | 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. It does not disclose whether the transfer_token is consumed, whether the operation has side effects, or what happens if the token is invalid. The verb 'Get' implies a read, but this is not explicitly stated.
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: a one-line purpose, a prerequisite note, and clearly labeled parameter descriptions. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.
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 simple 2-parameter tool and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, prerequisite (transfer_token), and parameter semantics. It does not need to explain return values due to the output schema. It could mention error conditions, but overall it is reasonably 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'order_id: The order ID of a completed domain purchase' and 'transfer_token: Token returned by verify_transfer_code.' This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types.
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 the EPP/transfer authorization code for a completed domain purchase. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the requirement of a transfer_token from verify_transfer_code, implying a specific workflow.
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 by stating it 'Requires a transfer_token from verify_transfer_code' and that order_id must be from a completed purchase. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like request_transfer_code, nor does it provide exclusions.
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.