Generate domain name ideas from a keyword and check their availability.
Args: keyword: A keyword or short business name (e.g. "taskflow").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keyword | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a non-mutating operation (generate and check availability), which is positive, but does not explicitly state that it does not purchase/reserve domains, nor mention any limitations or side effects. This is a moderate gap.
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, stating the main purpose in the first sentence and clarifying the parameter in the second. Every sentence contributes value with no 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 tool's simplicity (one parameter) and that an output schema exists, the description covers the core function and parameter meaning. It does not describe return values, but the output schema likely handles that, so completeness 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. It adds useful semantics for 'keyword' ('a keyword or short business name') with an example ('taskflow'), which compensates well for the schema's lack of description.
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 purpose with specific verbs ('Generate', 'check') and a resource ('domain name ideas'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing generation from a keyword, which is unique compared to buy/check/transfer operations.
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 brainstorming domain names from a keyword, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus check_domain or check_domains_bulk. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so guidance is only implied.
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.