code402-verify-mcp

chain_ens_resolve

Paid ($0.02). Resolve a .eth ENS name to its Ethereum address via the universal resolver.

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": "chain_ens_resolve"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	ENS name (e.g. vitalik.eth)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does add genuinely useful context by disclosing the $0.02 cost, which an agent needs before calling. However, it omits failure behavior for unresolvable names, any rate limits, and the response shape, leaving meaningful gaps for a paid tool.

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 short sentences with zero waste; the cost — the most decision-relevant fact — is front-loaded before the purpose statement.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, mechanism, and cost adequately. It falls short only on edge-case behavior (unresolved names) and return format, which are minor for this complexity.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself providing the 'vitalik.eth' example. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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), a specific resource (.eth ENS name), and the output (Ethereum address), plus the mechanism (universal resolver). An agent can distinguish this from the chain_* on-chain read siblings without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the purpose — use it when you have an ENS name and need an address — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no note about what to do when a name fails to resolve.

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

All code402-verify-mcp 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?