Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

VerifyLite

by io.github.SecondShotAI
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Basename and ENS lookup: name to address, or address to its verified primary name

name_lookup
Read-only

Resolves Basenames (name.base.eth, on Base) and ENS names (name.eth, on Ethereum) to wallet addresses, including a Base-specific address and profile records (avatar, description, url, X, GitHub). Or give an 0x address to get its primary name, verified by resolving the name back to the same address. A bare name like jesse means jesse.base.eth. Useful before sending funds to a name or labeling counterparties. Read-only. Not charged for invalid or unregistered names. Paid via x402; see list_prices.

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": "name_lookup"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesA name (jesse.base.eth, vitalik.eth, or just jesse) or an 0x address.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the payment model (x402, see list_prices), that invalid or unregistered names are not charged, and that reverse lookups are verified by resolving the name back to the same address. It also describes returned data such as Base-specific address and profile records, which is substantial behavioral context.

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 front-loaded and efficient: it states the core resolution behavior first, then reverse lookup, bare-name shorthand, use cases, and payment details. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

For a one-parameter lookup tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers input formats, supported naming systems, returned profile fields, reverse verification, pricing, and intended use. Nothing material is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that a bare name like jesse is treated as jesse.base.eth and that an 0x address triggers reverse primary-name lookup. That resolves the main ambiguity in the single input parameter.

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 states a specific bidirectional operation: resolving Basenames and ENS names to addresses, and 0x addresses back to verified primary names. It names the resources, chains, and returned profile fields, so it is clearly distinguishable from siblings like chain_balance or token_safety_check.

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?

It gives clear usage contexts: before sending funds to a name, or labeling counterparties. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative lookup tool, so it falls short of the top score.

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

All VerifyLite toolsInspect
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