Skip to main content
Glama

Name Whisper — ENS Intelligence Layer

by ai.namewhisper

get_wallet_portfolio

Read-only

Get all ENS names owned by a wallet address. Returns each name with label, tags, expiry, registration date, and active listing/offer prices. Useful for portfolio analysis and wallet profiling.

If you are authenticated via ERC-8128 and omit the wallet parameter, your own wallet is used automatically.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results (default 100, max 200)
offsetNoPagination offset
walletYesEthereum wallet address (0x...) or ENS name

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds that it returns specific fields and explains automatic wallet selection with authentication. No contradictions. Sufficient behavioral disclosure for a read-only operation.

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 in first paragraph, second paragraph adds authentication nuance. Every sentence is informative and no redundancy. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

Tool has 3 simple params and no output schema. Description explains purpose, returned fields, and authentication. Could mention pagination (limit/offset) but not essential. Adequately complete for the tool's complexity.

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 wallet can be omitted with authentication (own wallet auto-used). This context goes beyond schema, improving parameter understanding.

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?

Clearly states 'Get all ENS names owned by a wallet address' and lists returned fields (label, tags, expiry, etc.). Distinct from siblings like get_name_details (single name) and search_ens_names (search).

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?

Explicitly mentions use case ('portfolio analysis and wallet profiling') and authentication behavior (if authenticated and wallet omitted, uses own wallet). Does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but provides sufficient context for appropriate use.

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