Skip to main content
Glama

Name Whisper — ENS Intelligence Layer

by ai.namewhisper

provision_agent_identity

Read-only

Provision a complete ENS identity for an AI agent in one call. Describe your agent's purpose and budget — get back recommended available names, a multi-step registration recipe (commit → register → set agent records), and ready-to-sign transaction data.

The registration recipe includes agent identity records (ENSIP-25: ai.agent, ai.purpose, ai.capabilities + ENSIP-26: agent-context) as a mandatory step — these records make the agent discoverable in the ENS Agents directory. ENSIP-25 agent-registration binding is included ONLY when an agentRegistry is provided; it is OPTIONAL — do not ask for or wait on a registry address / agent ID, and never block the launch on it. The recipe then OPTIONALLY mints the on-chain ERC-8004 agent identity via the register_agent tool (default route binds the agent to the name per ERC-8217, so it transfers with the name), and finishes with launch_hosted_agent — the gas-free, no-signature step that gives the agent a brain and takes it LIVE at namewhisper.ai/agent/.

IMPORTANT: The calling AI MUST execute all steps in the recipe, including the final set_ens_records step. Agent identity is not complete until the text records are on-chain.

Example: "DeFi trading bot, 0.05 ETH budget" → names like swiftswap.eth with full registration + identity setup instructions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
purposeYesWhat the agent does (e.g. "DeFi trading bot", "data analytics agent", "social media manager", "infrastructure monitor")
budgetEthNoMaximum budget in ETH for name acquisition (default: 0.1)
preferencesNoOptional naming preferences
agentRegistryNoENSIP-25 agent registry binding. If provided, the provisioning flow will include the agent-registration text record that links this ENS name to your on-chain agent identity.
walletAddressYesAgent wallet address (will own the name and sign transactions)

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description involves creating, registering, minting, and launching—all mutating operations. This is a direct contradiction. The description itself discloses behavioral traits well (multi-step recipe, optional steps), but the contradiction with annotations undermines trust and transparency.

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 introductory sentence, detailed breakdown, examples, and important notes. It is somewhat long but every part serves a purpose. Slight improvements could be made to condense redundant explanations.

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?

The tool is complex with multiple parameters and steps. The description covers purpose, input constraints, return values (recommended names, recipe, transaction data), and step-by-step expectations. It explains optional behaviors (ENSIP-25 binding condition) and the final launch step. Absence of output schema is partially compensated by describing what is returned.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond schema parameter descriptions; it focuses on the overall flow rather than per-parameter semantics. It adds context like the meaning of agentRegistry but the schema already describes parameters adequately.

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: 'Provision a complete ENS identity for an AI agent in one call.' It specifies the output (recommended names, registration recipe, transaction data) and distinguishes itself by offering a multi-step recipe that avoids manual combination of other tools.

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 explains when to use this tool (for complete agent identity provisioning) and provides context about optional steps (agentRegistry, ERC-8004 binding, launch). It cautions the calling AI must execute all steps. However, it does not explicitly state when alternative tools (e.g., register_agent, set_ens_records) should be used instead.

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