Skip to main content
Glama
FTHTrading

Genesis402

by FTHTrading
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

Domain registration facts via RDAP

genesis402_whois

Retrieve domain registration facts (registrar, age, expiry, status, nameservers) via RDAP to flag young domains that signal fraud when vetting a website or sender domain.

Instructions

Paid (price from the live 402 quote). Domain registration facts via RDAP: registrar, age, expiry, status and nameservers. Young domains are a common fraud signal. Use to vet a website or sender domain.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesThe domain to look up, e.g. example.com (no scheme or path).
payment_signatureNoOptional. An x402 v2 payment you signed for this call's quote (the PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header value). Omit to get the price quote first; nothing is charged without it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / domain / description
      Added value: +"The domain to look up, e.g. example.com (no scheme or path)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / payment_signature / description
      Previous value: -"Optional. An x402 v2 payment you signed for this call's quote (the PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header value). Omit to get the price quote first."New value: +"Optional. An x402 v2 payment you signed for this call's quote (the PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header value). Omit to get the price quote first; nothing is charged without it."
  2. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description surfaces that the call is paid with a live 402 quote, which the annotations do not state. It also discloses the result fields, and nothing in it contradicts readOnlyHint=false or openWorldHint=true; the paid/quote behavior supplements those flags.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, with the paid nature and core facts front-loaded. The fraud-signal sentence earns its place by explaining why an agent would request this tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter lookup with no output schema, it names the returned data categories and the payment flow. It could add what happens when RDAP has no data, but the core calling context is complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's mention of RDAP and live pricing adds domain context, but it does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema's domain and payment_signature descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the exact resource (Domain registration facts via RDAP) and enumerates outputs (registrar, age, expiry, status, nameservers). It also gives the intended action ('Use to vet a website or sender domain'), which separates it from unrelated siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly states when to use it: when vetting a website or sender domain, especially because young domains are a fraud signal. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the stated use case is specific enough for an agent to select it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools