Skip to main content
Glama

Name Whisper — ENS Intelligence Layer

by ai.namewhisper

get_primary_name

Read-only

Check what primary ENS name is set for a wallet address (reverse resolution).

Returns the ENS name that this address resolves to, or null if no primary name is set.

This verifies both directions:

  • Reverse: address → name (the reverse record)

  • Forward: name → address (confirms the name actually points back to this wallet)

If either direction is missing, the primary name won't resolve. Use this to:

  • Verify a primary name was set correctly after set_primary_name

  • Check if a wallet has any primary name configured

  • Debug why a primary name isn't showing up (missing ETH address record)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
walletAddressYesEthereum wallet address (0x...) to check reverse resolution for

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description reveals that the tool verifies both reverse and forward resolution directions, and explains the condition for null return. This adds significant behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, informing the agent about internal checks.

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 concise yet thorough, front-loading the core purpose and then elaborating with bidirectional verification and bullet-pointed use cases. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 complexity (bidirectional verification, null return) and lack of output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does, its internal logic, and practical use cases. It is complete for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool among many siblings.

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 single parameter walletAddress is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage). The description does not add additional semantics or formatting details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: to check the primary ENS name set for a wallet address via reverse resolution. The verb 'check' and resource 'primary ENS name' are specific and distinct from sibling tools like set_primary_name or get_name_details.

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?

The description provides explicit use cases (verify after set_primary_name, check configuration, debug missing resolution) but does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. This gives clear context but lacks exclusions.

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