Check the reputation of an IP address or domain using AbuseIPDB and VirusTotal. Returns a security verdict (malicious/suspicious/unknown/clean) with confidence signals. Verdict is conservative: incomplete data returns 'unknown' never 'clean'. Results are cached for 10 minutes. Costs $0.01 USDC per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses conservative verdict policy (unknown never clean), caching duration (10 minutes), and cost ($0.01 per call), providing rich behavioral context.
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?
Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, verdict details, and behavior/cost. Front-loaded with actionable information, no wasted words.
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?
While behavioral details are provided, the description lacks an input parameter specification (IP/domain), making the tool's usage ambiguous. No output schema exists, and the description does not clarify the structure of confidence signals.
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?
Input schema has zero parameters, but description implies the tool accepts an IP or domain as input. This contradiction makes the description misleading. Schema coverage is vacuously 100%, but description adds incorrect information.
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 checks reputation of an IP or domain using specific sources (AbuseIPDB, VirusTotal) and returns a security verdict. It is distinct from sibling tools cve_lookup and secret_scan.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. However, the context of security reputation checking is clear from the description.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: CVE lookup for software vulnerabilities, reputation check for IPs/domains, and secret scanning for credentials. No functional overlap exists.
All tools follow a consistent noun_verb pattern (cve_lookup, reputation_check, secret_scan), making the naming predictable and easy to understand.
With 3 tools, the server is well-scoped for a security analysis assistant, covering vulnerability lookup, IP/domain reputation, and secret detection without unnecessary bloat.
The tools cover three essential security areas, but common additions like malware hash lookup or threat intelligence feeds are missing, representing minor gaps in a broader security toolkit.