Skip to main content
Glama

Name Whisper — ENS Intelligence Layer

by ai.namewhisper

bulk_transfer_ens_names

Destructive

Transfer multiple ENS names in a single transaction via Multicall3 — bulk send.

Much cheaper and faster than transferring names one at a time. Supports up to 20 names per batch.

Automatically detects whether each name is wrapped (NameWrapper/ERC-1155) or unwrapped (BaseRegistrar/ERC-721) and builds the correct transfer call for each.

All names can go to the same recipient or to different recipients — specify a toAddress per name. Each toAddress may be a 0x address OR an ENS name (resolved to its address record automatically); pass what the user gave you and never use get_name_details to resolve a recipient.

Conversational flow for "send all my names" / "transfer my names": first call get_wallet_portfolio to find the names, present the FULL list that will be transferred, confirm the recipient, and get explicit confirmation (this is IRREVERSIBLE). Only THEN call this tool. NEVER auto-transfer without explicit confirmation.

Requirements: fromAddress must currently own ALL names in the batch, and every name must be registered (not expired).

WARNING: This transfers FULL ownership of every name — recipients gain complete control. Resolver records (avatar, addresses, etc.) are unaffected and stay on each name; after transfer, consider bulk_set_records to update ETH address records.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
transfersYesArray of name + recipient pairs. Max 20 per batch. All names must be owned by fromAddress.
fromAddressYesCurrent owner wallet address (must sign the transaction). All names must be owned by this address.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses that transfer is irreversible, recipients gain complete control, and resolver records are unaffected. Also mentions automatic detection of wrapped/unwrapped names. These details go beyond the destructiveHint annotation.

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 clear sections: purpose, benefits, mechanics, usage guidelines, requirements, and warning. While fairly long, every sentence adds value, maintaining conciseness given the complexity.

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?

Covers all necessary aspects: functionality, workflow with prerequisites, side effects, and behavior. No output schema exists, so return value description is not required. Adequately complete for a complex batch transfer tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining that toAddress can be an ENS name (resolved automatically) and advises against using get_name_details for resolution, providing extra context for correct parameter usage.

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 ('transfer multiple ENS names in a single transaction via Multicall3 — bulk send') and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'transfer_ens_name' by highlighting cost and speed benefits.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use (batch transfers) vs alternatives, prerequisites (fromAddress must own all names), and a conversational flow including prior call to get_wallet_portfolio and explicit confirmation. States NEVER auto-transfer.

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