Skip to main content
Glama

Name Whisper — ENS Intelligence Layer

by ai.namewhisper

purchase_name

Destructive

Purchase an ENS name — either buy a listed name from a marketplace or register an available name directly on-chain.

For AVAILABLE names: Returns a complete registration recipe with contract address, ABI, step-by-step instructions, and a pre-generated secret. Your wallet signs and submits the transactions (commit → wait 60s → register).

For LISTED names: Searches all marketplaces (OpenSea, Grails) for the best price. If there are MULTIPLE active listings, returns CHOOSE_LISTING status with all options — present these to the user and ask which one they want. When the user chooses, call this tool again with the chosen orderHash to get the buy transaction.

The tool auto-detects whether the name is available or listed. You can override with the 'action' parameter.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesENS name to purchase (e.g. "coffee.eth")
actionNoAction: buy_listing (purchase listed name), register (register available name), auto (detect automatically)auto
durationNoRegistration duration in days. ENS protocol minimum is 28 days; maximum is 3650 (10 years); default is 365 (1 year). Sub-year is allowed.
orderHashNoSpecific Seaport order hash to fulfill. Use this when the user has chosen a specific listing from multiple options.
maxPriceEthNoMaximum price willing to pay in ETH (for listed names)
durationYearsNoDEPRECATED — use duration (days) instead. Number of years (converted to days internally).
walletAddressYesBuyer wallet address (will own the name)

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds significant behavioral context: returns a registration recipe with transactions, requires commit and 60s wait for available names; searches multiple marketplaces and returns CHOOSE_LISTING for multiple listings. No contradictions.

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 efficiently structured: first sentence states purpose, followed by separate paragraphs for available and listed names. No redundant information; each sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description explains return values adequately (registration recipe, CHOOSE_LISTING status, buy transaction). Covers edge cases like multiple listings, deprecated parameter, and auto-detection override.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, parameter descriptions are detailed with defaults, min/max, enums, and deprecation notice. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining the auto-detection logic and the CHOOSE_LISTING workflow.

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 purchases an ENS name, distinguishing between buying listed names and registering available ones. It uses specific verbs and resources, and is distinct from sibling tools like check_availability and create_listing.

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 clear guidance on when to use auto-detection vs specifying action, and how to handle multiple listings (CHOOSE_LISTING status). However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools or state when not to use this tool.

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