resolve_nameCross-chain name resolution: ENS (.eth) and Bonfida SNS (.sol). Returns resolved address(es). 1h cache. $0.001 USDC.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Human-readable name, e.g. 'vitalik.eth' or 'bonfida.sol'. ENS (.eth) and Bonfida SNS (.sol) are supported. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, already communicating safety. The description adds useful behavioral context: a 1-hour cache and a cost of $0.001 USDC, which are not in the schema. This helps the agent understand performance and pricing implications without contradicting annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes cache and cost without being verbose. Every clause adds value, making it an exemplary compact description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what it resolves, the supported protocols, return type, cache behavior, and cost. Combined with annotations, an agent has full context to invoke it correctly. No critical information is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers the lone 'name' parameter with an example and supported domains (100% coverage). The description's mention of ENS and SNS reinforces this but does not add new parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Cross-chain name resolution' with explicit support for ENS (.eth) and Bonfida SNS (.sol), and clarifies it 'Returns resolved address(es)'. This clearly identifies the tool's function as resolving human-readable names to addresses, distinguishing it from sibling tools that decode calldata or transactions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers clear context: use for resolving .eth and .sol names. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope (ENS/SNS) implicitly defines when to use the tool. This is clear enough for an agent to select it for name resolution tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a clearly distinct function — anchoring, decoding, wallet intelligence, entertainment, etc. Even similar tools like decode_calldata vs decode_tx and intel_wallet vs screen_wallet are precisely separated by descriptions.
Most names follow a verb_noun pattern (anchor_hash, decode_calldata), but there are exceptions like aura_read (noun_verb), intel_wallet (noun_noun), and ledger_report (ambiguous). This mixed convention is readable but not fully consistent.
18 tools is slightly above the ideal range but not overwhelming. Each tool serves a specific purpose, and the count feels reasonable for the broad set of utilities offered.
The core utilities (anchoring, wallet intelligence, ledger accounting) are well-covered without obvious dead ends. Some domain-specific workflows could be expanded (e.g., verifying anchors), but the existing tools provide complete standalone operations.