Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• compare_registrarsA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return format ('per-registrar rows with buy links'), a cache-dependent failure mode ('notice if no fresh cached pricing exists'), and implicitly the presence of caching. It does not detail rate limits or data freshness guarantees, but for a simple lookup this is reasonably transparent.

  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?

  Two sentences efficiently cover purpose, use case, exclusion, and return behavior. Every clause adds value and the description is front-loaded with the core action.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  Despite having only one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and an edge-case notice. It is complete for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

  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?

  The input schema already fully describes the single parameter 'tld' with format and leading-dot stripping (100% coverage). The description adds 'given TLD' but no additional parameter details, so the baseline of 3 applies.

  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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Compare what 6 registrars charge for a given TLD' and includes the exact pricing dimensions (first-year, renewal, 3-year total). It explicitly distinguishes itself from check_domain, making the purpose unmistakable.

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

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  It states exactly when to use the tool: 'Use for pricing a TLD you already intend to buy' and clearly excludes the availability case with a named alternative: 'this does NOT check whether a specific domain is free (use check_domain for that)'.

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

• get_domain_ageA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the RDAP mechanism, that it only works for taken/registered domains, and the 'could not determine' edge case for ccTLDs like .co. It could provide more detail on exact output formatting, but it is adequately transparent.

  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 sentences, all information-dense: the core action, the use case, the sibling distinction, and the edge-case limitation. No filler or redundant content.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  This is a simple one-parameter tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema. The description covers purpose, applicability, limitation, and sibling differentiation, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

  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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The schema already describes the domain parameter as fully-qualified and meaningful only for taken domains; the description reinforces this but adds little semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

  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?

  Description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Return the registration (creation) year and expiration date of a TAKEN domain, via RDAP.' It clearly states what the tool does and explicitly distinguishes it from check_domain by noting it does NOT report availability.

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

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  Explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use to gauge how long a name has been held or when it may expire.' It also names the alternative for availability checks: 'use check_domain for that.' The scope (taken domains only) is clearly stated.

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

• search_domainsA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations supplied, the description takes on full transparency duty. It discloses result grouping semantics (AVAILABLE/TAKEN/UNKNOWN) and the critical behavioral rule that UNKNOWN entries are unverified and must not be treated as available, preventing misuse.

  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?

  Four sentences pack the core purpose, usage, and output semantics without redundancy. The example in parentheses makes the one-to-many matching instantly clear.

  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?

  The description covers purpose, alternatives, output structure, and an important data-interpretation caveat. It lacks only granular return/error details, but given the tool's simplicity and no output schema, this is sufficient.

  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?

  Both parameters already have detailed schema descriptions (query format, tlds format and default), so the description adds little beyond the example. Schema coverage is 100%, warranting a baseline 3.

  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 opens with a specific action and resource ('Check ONE name across MANY TLDs') and immediately differentiates from the sibling tool check_domain, making its scope unmistakable.

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

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  Explicitly states when to use ('when comparing extensions for the same word') and when not to ('for a single known domain use check_domain instead'), providing clear decision guidance.

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

• check_domainA
  5/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses safety and behavior: it mentions cross-checking against three independent signals, explains the 'uncertain' verdict (treated as unknown/NOT available), and notes that price may be absent. This is high-quality behavioral context beyond a simple 'returns availability.'

  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?

  The description is information-dense yet well-structured, leading with the primary action and then systematically covering scope, alternatives, return values, and edge-case behavior. Every sentence contributes meaning; no filler.

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

  Completeness5/5

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

  With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates return values: availability verdict, cheapest registrar with buy link, first-year price, and registration year for taken names. It also covers the uncertain edge case, making the tool fully comprehensible for an agent.

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

  Parameters5/5

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

  Schema coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description, but the description adds valuable semantics: it clarifies input must be a fully-qualified domain, URLs and 'www.' are stripped automatically, and bare words are rejected (leading to search_domains). This goes well beyond the schema.

  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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check if ONE specific domain ... is registrable right now.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling search_domains by stating it's for a single fully-qualified name. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  Explicitly states when to use this tool ('for a single fully-qualified name') and provides a direct alternative ('to test one word across many extensions, use search_domains instead'). It also advises how to interpret 'uncertain' results, adding practical usage guidance.

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