parseSplit a domain into (subdomain, registrable_domain, public_suffix).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | Canonical form of the input domain | |
| subdomain | Yes | Subdomain part, null if not present | |
| public_suffix | Yes | Public suffix part of the domain | |
| registrable_domain | Yes | Registrable domain (site), null if none |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds that the tool splits a domain into three parts, which is behavioral context but does not disclose any additional traits beyond what annotations provide. It is consistent and adds value by specifying the output structure.
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 a single concise sentence that clearly states the action and output. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to scan. Every word adds value.
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 (1 parameter, no nested objects, and an existing output schema), the description is sufficient to understand the tool's purpose and usage. The output schema likely defines the structure of the returned parts, so no additional details are needed.
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 has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'domain'. The description explains that 'domain' is the input to be split, which adds some meaning but no constraints or format details. With only 1 parameter and a simple purpose, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 explicitly states the verb 'Split' and the resource 'domain', and specifies the three output parts (subdomain, registrable_domain, public_suffix). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'public_suffix' and 'registrable_domain' which handle only one part.
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 alternatives. For example, it does not indicate that this tool is useful for parsing a domain into its components, or when to use a more specialized tool like 'public_suffix' or 'registrable_domain'.
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.
Multiple tools serve overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all query data in similar ways. Prediction market tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, etc.) are numerous and confusingly similar. Agents will struggle to choose the right tool.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern. Some use snake_case like ai_visibility_check, others are generic single words (parse, remember, forget). There is no uniform verb_noun structure, mixing descriptive names (entity_profile) with vague ones (list_version).
35 tools is a large set for a server named 'Public Suffix List', but the actual domain (comprehensive data platform) may justify many tools. However, the count feels heavy for the apparent scope of the server, with many niche prediction market tools.
The tool surface covers a wide range: data query, comparison, subscription, memory management, and claim verification. However, there are gaps in data modification (no update/delete for records) and some prediction market features have no direct counterparts. Overall, the set is fairly complete for its data-fetching purpose.