sns_resolveResolve a .sol Solana Name Service domain to its owner wallet address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | .sol domain name, e.g. "bonfida.sol" |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The .sol domain that was resolved | |
| address | Yes | Owner wallet address (base58) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds no further behavioral details beyond the purpose, which is adequate given 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?
Single sentence, no unnecessary words. Highly concise and front-loaded.
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?
With only one parameter, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema (exists), the description is complete and sufficient for an agent to understand the tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter description includes an example. The tool description does not add additional parameter context, so it scores baseline 3.
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 clearly states the action (Resolve), the resource (.sol SNS domain), and the result (owner wallet address). It distinguishes from sibling sns_reverseLookup which does the opposite.
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 implies use when you have a .sol domain and need the address. The sibling tool sns_reverseLookup provides the alternative for reverse resolution, so usage context is clear though not explicitly stated.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but get_coin_intel and get_oracle_conviction overlap in providing intelligence signals; descriptions help differentiate but still may cause confusion.
Naming patterns are mixed: some use snake_case (get_bonding_curve), others use camelCase (sns_reverseLookup), and kol_leaderboard lacks a prefix that others like pumpfun_ have.
19 tools cover a broad range of pump.fun functionality, from token details to claims and social analysis; the count feels appropriate for the scope.
The tool set covers virtually all core aspects of pump.fun ecosystem: token info, intelligence, trading, claims, AMM quotes, metadata upload, SNS, and social sentiment, with no obvious gaps.