Remove the registrar transfer lock. 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 behavioral burden. It discloses the action and the token dependency but does not mention side effects, reversibility, or whether the operation is destructive. As a mutating tool, this lack of detail is a noticeable 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 concise and well-structured: two sentences of purpose and context plus a two-item argument list with explanations. Every sentence adds value and there is no irrelevant 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?
For a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers essential context: what it does, what inputs are needed, and where they come from. It omits error-handling or workflow steps, but the low complexity makes that acceptable.
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 provides only parameter names and types, with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that order_id is the ID of a completed domain purchase and transfer_token is the token returned by verify_transfer_code. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the 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 opens with 'Remove the registrar transfer lock,' a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies the tool's function. It also references verify_transfer_code, distinguishing it from sibling verification tools. This is unambiguous and action-oriented.
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 that a transfer_token from verify_transfer_code is required, establishing the tool's place in the domain purchase flow. It also specifies order_id must relate to a completed purchase, providing a clear precondition. It does not explicitly list alternatives but the context is sufficient.
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.