AgentPay Domain & Network Lookup

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context — the $0.005 USDC per call cost and x402/credits payment path — but says nothing about rate limits, failure modes, or resolution behavior beyond annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and followed by the cost. Zero filler; every clause earns its place.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema, the description plus annotations plus schema cover what an agent needs to invoke it. Cost is disclosed, though record-type defaults and return shape are left entirely to the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. However, with no enums declared, the description's enumeration of valid record types (A, AAAA, CNAME, MX, NS, TXT, SOA, CAA, PTR, SRV) adds real value beyond the schema's terse 'Record type, default A'.

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?

Specific verb ('Resolve') + resource ('DNS records') with an enumerated set of supported record types. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like lookup_ip, lookup_whois, and lookup_domain_report.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus lookup_domain_report, lookup_ip, or lookup_whois. The only contextual statement is about pricing, which does not help an agent select between siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: a per-call cost of $0.02 USDC with two payment mechanisms (x402 or credits), which an agent must know before invoking. It omits any note on rate limits or result caching, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two dense sentences with zero padding; the scope is front-loaded and the cost caveat follows. Every clause carries information.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what data categories come back and what the call costs. It is nearly complete; the only gap is domain-input format expectations.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% ("Domain name"), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no format detail (e.g., whether a bare domain or URL is accepted), which is the baseline-3 case when the schema carries the load.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (domain report) and enumerates exactly what it aggregates: registration, DNS, email provider, SPF/DMARC, hosting. That implicitly distinguishes it from the narrower siblings lookup_dns/lookup_whois, but it never names those alternatives, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

"One-call domain report" implies this is the consolidated alternative to the single-purpose lookup tools, and the pricing note hints at a cost consideration, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-prefer lookup_dns or lookup_whois guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: a fixed per-call cost of $0.01 USDC and supported payment methods (x402 or credits), which affects invocation and budgeting.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the returned data and then add the cost. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or 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?

For a simple one-parameter read-only lookup, the description covers the return values (network owner, range, country, reverse DNS) and the critical cost/payment behavior. With annotations covering safety and the schema covering the parameter, no essential context is missing.

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 fully documents the single required parameter 'ip' as an IPv4 or IPv6 address (100% coverage). The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already carries the parameter burden.

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 title and description state a specific lookup resource (IP address) and enumerate the exact data returned: network owner, range, country, and reverse DNS. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like lookup_domain_report and lookup_whois, though the description itself does not explicitly name alternatives or use a direct verb like 'retrieves'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus lookup_dns, lookup_whois, or lookup_domain_report. It only states the cost, which is operational information rather than usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful non-annotation trait — the $0.01 USDC cost and payment paths (x402 or credits) — but says nothing about rate limits, failure behavior, or domains without RDAP records.

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?

Two tight sentences: the capability and its returned fields come first, the pricing caveat second. Nothing is padding and the front-loading is correct.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the returned fields and the cost model, which is enough to call it correctly. The unresolved overlap with lookup_domain_report and the title's unexplained 'Network Lookup' phrasing (a separate lookup_ip exists) are the remaining gaps.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'domain'. The description adds no format detail (TLD requirements, IDN handling) beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource — domain registration data (registrar, created/expires, status, nameservers) — and the retrieval mechanism, RDAP. However, it offers no differentiation from the closely related sibling lookup_domain_report, which an agent would need to distinguish between.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus lookup_domain_report, lookup_dns, or lookup_ip. The only supplementary sentence covers billing, not selection or preconditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.