Crypto, web, finance and app data tools

ENS & Basename Resolver

ens_resolve

Resolve an ENS name (vitalik.eth) or Basename (jesse.base.eth) to its address and profile records (avatar, url, twitter, github, email, description), or an address to its verified primary name. Use before sending funds to a name or to show who owns a wallet.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "ens_resolve"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses bidirectional behavior and that reverse results are 'verified' primary names, but omits error behavior, chain/network scope (ENS vs. Basename registries), and whether any auth or rate limits apply. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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, front-loaded with the core resolution behavior, followed by concise usage guidance. Every clause earns its place, including the output record list and examples.

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?

For a single-parameter resolver with an output schema, the definition covers input forms, outputs at a high level, and primary use cases. Missing details are chain/registry scope and no-resolution behavior, which are minor given the tool's low complexity and the output schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by clarifying that the single 'name' parameter accepts an ENS name, a Basename, or a raw address, with concrete format examples. It could be more explicit that the same parameter handles all three input types, but the added meaning is substantial.

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?

States a specific verb (resolve) and resource (ENS name/Basename), covering both forward resolution to address/profile records and reverse resolution to verified primary name. Concrete examples (vitalik.eth, jesse.base.eth) and an enumerated record list make the purpose unambiguous and distinguish it from any sibling.

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 names two use cases: before sending funds to a name, and to show who owns a wallet. This gives clear context, but it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like dns_lookup, domain_whois, or evm_chain_lookup, nor state when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Crypto, web, finance and app data tools tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?