Skip to main content
Glama

Name Whisper — ENS Intelligence Layer

by ai.namewhisper

accept_offer

Destructive

Accept a standing offer on an ENS name you own. Returns unsigned Seaport fulfillOrder() calldata.

When you submit this transaction, Seaport atomically:

  • Pulls the offered WETH from the buyer's wallet

  • Transfers the ENS name from your wallet to the buyer

  • Pays the 1% marketplace fee from the WETH

You receive the offer amount minus the 1% fee. The buyer needs a live WETH balance + approval for Seaport/OpenSea conduit — if either is missing the tx will revert; you'll have signed but the chain won't execute.

Before accepting: you must have approved Seaport (or the OpenSea conduit, for cross-posted offers) on NameWrapper (wrapped name) or BaseRegistrar (unwrapped). Use approve_operator if needed. Use get_name_details to see the offer hash and confirm the highest offer.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
orderHashYesSeaport order hash of the buyer's offer to accept
walletAddressYesYour wallet address (the seller). Must own the ENS name in the offer.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds atomic operation details (Seaport pulls WETH, transfers ENS name, pays fee), the 1% fee, and revert conditions. No contradiction with annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured with a clear first sentence stating purpose, then atomic steps, then prerequisites. While dense, each sentence adds value; however, slight condensation could improve conciseness.

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?

Given the financial and atomic nature of the tool and lack of output schema, the description covers prerequisites, chain behavior, revert conditions, and references sibling tools for approval and verification. It is complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context: orderHash is the buyer's offer hash and walletAddress must own the ENS name. It also references get_name_details for confirmation.

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 clearly states the action ('Accept a standing offer on an ENS name you own') and the output ('Returns unsigned Seaport fulfillOrder() calldata'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_listing' and 'make_offer' by focusing on acceptance.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use ('Before accepting: you must have approved Seaport...'), provides a prerequisite ('Use approve_operator if needed'), and suggests verifying the offer ('Use get_name_details to see the offer hash'). It also explains when the transaction will revert.

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

All Name Whisper — ENS Intelligence Layer toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, but some pairs (e.g., search_ens_names vs enumerate_entities, batch_purchase vs sweep) could cause confusion due to overlapping functionality. The descriptions help differentiate, but the large number of tools increases ambiguity risk.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names use consistent snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_name_details, set_ens_records, batch_create_listings). Naming conventions are uniform and predictable, making it easy to infer tool purpose from the name.

Tool Count4/5

With 44 tools, the server is quite comprehensive, covering a wide range of ENS operations. While this exceeds the typical 3-15 tool count, the scope of the domain (marketplace, registration, agent identity, etc.) justifies the number, and tools are well-organized into logical groups.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of ENS names: registration, renewal, wrapping, transfers, marketplace actions (listings, offers, purchases), record management, subnames, agent identity, and market intelligence. No obvious gaps are present for an ENS intelligence platform.

Resources