IP threat / abuse reputation — Is this IP hostile? Reputation verdict for an IPv4 from public abuse feeds (blocklist.de, Spamhaus DROP) plus Polyform's own observed scanner traffic. Returns malicious flag, 0-100 score, and which sources flagged it. For bot filtering, fraud and firewall automation. JSON. Price: $0.002 USDC (Base, via x402).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | Yes | IPv4 address to check |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive; the description adds valuable behavioral detail: feed sources, inclusion of Polyform's observed scanner traffic, exact return fields, JSON format, and price. This goes well beyond the structured 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?
Every sentence earns its place: question framing, data sources, return values, use cases, format, and price. The description is compact, front-loaded, and contains no filler.
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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description explains what the tool does, what it returns, where the data comes from, when to use it, the response format, and the cost. An agent has everything needed to invoke it 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 single `ip` parameter already described as 'IPv4 address to check.' The description reinforces IPv4 and reputation checking but does not add meaningful new detail beyond the schema, 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?
Description states a specific action and resource: checking an IPv4 address's threat/abuse reputation and returning a verdict. It also names concrete data sources and outputs, which clearly separates it from generic `ip` lookups and other reputation tools.
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?
Description gives explicit contexts: 'For bot filtering, fraud and firewall automation.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the use-case framing is clear enough for an agent to route appropriately.
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.