Skip to main content
Glama

Name Whisper — ENS Intelligence Layer

by ai.namewhisper

check_availability

Read-only

Check availability of one or more ENS names the user named, or labels returned by enumerate_entities. Do NOT feed it names you invented/typed yourself (especially real-world people, teams, brands, or films — models misspell those); get verified labels from enumerate_entities first. Returns status (AVAILABLE, PREMIUM_AUCTION, REGISTERED, GRACE_PERIOD, INVALID, or UNKNOWN), owner address, and expiry date for each name. GRACE_PERIOD names are NOT registerable — only the original holder can renew them. PREMIUM_AUCTION names ARE registerable (available: true) but carry a temporary, continuously-decaying premium ON TOP OF the base fee — the result includes premiumUsd / firstYearCostUsd; quote those, never say "no premium". AVAILABLE (without PREMIUM_AUCTION) means base price only, no premium. Validates ENS character rules. Accepts names with or without .eth suffix.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
namesYesArray of ENS names or labels to check (max 100). e.g. ["coffee", "tea.eth", "pixel"]

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations set readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: it confirms the operation is read-only, details return fields (status, owner, expiry), explains special statuses (GRACE_PERIOD, PREMIUM_AUCTION), and mentions ENS character rule validation. No contradiction.

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 dense yet efficient, covering all necessary aspects without redundancy. Each sentence serves a purpose—usage guidance, status explanation, pricing nuance—and is front-loaded with the primary 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 lacking an output schema, the description fully explains return values and their implications (status meanings, premium handling, validation). It addresses edge cases and provides complete context for an agent to correctly interpret results.

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 provides 100% coverage with description for the 'names' array. The tool description adds value by clarifying acceptable formats (with or without .eth suffix) and reiterating the max of 100, but does not introduce new parameter semantics beyond what schema already offers.

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 verb 'Check' and resource 'availability of ENS names', specifies the source of names ('user-named or labels from enumerate_entities'), and distinguishes this from siblings like search_ens_names or get_name_details by focusing on availability status.

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 instructs NOT to feed invented names and to use enumerate_entities for verified labels, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also explains what each status means (e.g., GRACE_PERIOD not registerable, PREMIUM_AUCTION registerable with premium) and how to interpret results.

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