Skip to main content
Glama

Wallet ENS

wallet_ens
Read-onlyIdempotent

Reverse ENS lookup: turn a 0x address into a human-readable name like 'vitalik.eth'. Returns null if the address has no ENS name set. Use whenever you have an address and want to display a friendlier identifier.

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": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "wallet_ens"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYesEVM wallet address (0x-prefixed, 42 chars)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already carry readOnly/idempotent/no-destructive, and the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact: it 'Returns null if the address has no ENS name set,' which prevents the agent from treating an empty result as an error. It doesn't discuss latency, caching, or ENS resolution freshness.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its direction, followed by the null-case contract and the usage trigger. No filler or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the return value (a name like 'vitalik.eth', or null). For a one-parameter read tool with strong annotations, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema ('EVM wallet address (0x-prefixed, 42 chars)'). The description reinforces '0x address' but adds no format or validation detail beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 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 operation and direction ('Reverse ENS lookup: turn a 0x address into a human-readable name') plus a concrete example, so the agent knows this maps address -> name rather than name -> address. Clearly distinct from siblings like wallet_batch_labels or wallet_label_provenance.

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?

Names the triggering condition explicitly: 'Use whenever you have an address and want to display a friendlier identifier.' It does not mention alternatives for bulk resolution (e.g. wallet_batch_labels) or say when not to bother, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.