Check whether a URL or domain is a scam/phishing site. Screens the MetaMask crypto-phishing blocklist, domain age (RDAP), and lexical red flags. Returns verdict (safe/caution/avoid), 0-100 risk score, reasons, and sources.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | URL or domain to check |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds value by revealing the screening sources (MetaMask blocklist, RDAP domain age, lexical flags) and return fields (verdict, risk score, reasons, sources), providing useful behavioral context beyond the 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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and includes all key details without redundant wording. It efficiently conveys the tool's function, method, and output.
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?
The description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns (verdict, risk score, reasons, sources). Given the simple single-parameter schema and no output schema, this is complete and sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.
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% with the parameter 'url' described as 'URL or domain to check'. The description adds nothing new about the parameter beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool checks if a URL or domain is a scam/phishing site, specifying the verb 'Check' and the resource 'URL or domain'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'check_address' by focusing on URLs/domains rather than addresses.
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 implies usage for URL/domain safety checks but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. With a sibling tool 'check_address', the lack of explicit differentiation or usage guidance is a minor gap, though context is clear.
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 input type: crypto address vs. URL/domain. There is no overlap in purpose, so an agent can easily select the correct tool based on what it needs to check.
Both tools follow the same check_<object> pattern, making the naming predictable and consistent. There are no deviations or mixed conventions.
With only 2 tools, the server feels thin, though the scope is narrow and both tools are directly relevant. The count is borderline but not unreasonable for a specialized security checking utility.
The server covers the two core security checks expected from its purpose (address and URL). There are no obvious dead ends, though a fuller security suite might add checks for transactions or other asset types.