null_names_quoteQuotes a handle: 3ch $512/yr, 4ch $128/yr, 5-6ch $4/yr (deliberately under ENS), 7+ characters FREE forever. Includes live state (available/registered/grace/premium with the 21-day Dutch decay) and the exact register->pay->claim steps. Names are public by definition - quoting one reveals nothing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | 3-32 chars, leading alphanumeric |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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 the pricing rules, the live state semantics, and the fact that quoting reveals nothing. This is a solid behavioral model for a quote tool, though error behavior and rate limits are not covered.
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 sentences and front-loads the core action and pricing. It is compact and information-dense, though the title already states '7+ chars free forever' and the body repeats that fact, causing a small amount of redundancy.
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 no output schema, the description explains the important return semantics: per-length pricing, live state including the 21-day Dutch decay premium, and exact register->pay->claim steps. It is sufficient for a one-parameter quote tool, though exact response formatting and invalid-input behavior are not specified.
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 schema already describes the name parameter as a 3-32 char leading-alphanumeric string, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by showing that handle length determines cost (3ch, 4ch, 5-6ch, 7+), which directly enriches the parameter's meaning.
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 opens with 'Quotes a handle', naming a specific verb and resource, then gives concrete pricing tiers by character length. It clearly differentiates this from siblings like null_names_market by focusing on a single handle's price, live state, and registration steps.
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 when to use the tool—when you need a handle's price, availability state, or registration steps—but never explicitly contrasts it with alternatives or states when not to use it. The privacy note ('quoting one reveals nothing') provides useful context but no exclusionary guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.