public_suffixJust the public suffix.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | Canonical form of the input domain | |
| public_suffix | Yes | Public suffix part of the domain |
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 no behavioral details (e.g., what constitutes a public suffix, edge cases like TLDs).
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 extremely short, but this is under-specification, not efficiency. It lacks essential information for a 4-word description to be helpful.
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 a single parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description still fails to explain the tool's return type or behavior. It is completely inadequate for an AI agent to understand its purpose.
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 has 0% description coverage and the description offers no additional meaning for the single 'domain' parameter. The examples in the schema are the only clues, but the description itself adds nothing.
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?
Description 'Just the public suffix' is a tautology that restates the tool name without specifying what the tool does. It does not indicate the action (e.g., extract or return) nor clarify the resource, making it nearly meaningless.
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 provided. The description fails to distinguish this tool from the sibling 'registrable_domain' or any alternatives, leaving the agent without context for selection.
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.