x402 Bazaar

basename_profile

Read-onlyIdempotent

Full onchain identity behind a Basename or address — Resolves the complete Base identity behind an address or Basename: resolved address, avatar, description, website and social handles (X/Twitter, GitHub, Farcaster, Discord) read from Base's L2 Resolver text records. Lets an agent turn a counterparty address into a real profile — beyond just the name. Complements address-trust (verification) with the human context. Required input: name. Priced $0.02 per call over x402 on Base; send a prepaid x-credit-token header for unlimited calls (no free tier on this tool). No API key required.

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": "basename_profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Basename or address

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No	The result payload. Shape is service-specific; every field is documented in the tool description.
`service`	No	The service id that answered.
`checkedAt`	No	ISO-8601 timestamp of when the underlying reads were taken.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedAug 31, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / data / description

Previous value: -"The result payload. Shape is service-specific; every field is documented in the service description above."New value: +"The result payload. Shape is service-specific; every field is documented in the tool description."

Changed1 schema field changedAug 31, 2026
- removedOutput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[
-  "data"
-]
```
AddedAug 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world, and the description adds substantial non-annotation context: the data source (Base L2 Resolver text records), the payment model ($0.02 per call over x402, prepaid x-credit-token header for unlimited calls, no free tier) and the fact that no API key is required. Payment and access mechanics are exactly the kind of behavioral detail structured fields do not carry.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and return fields, then usage positioning, then pricing. It is dense with useful content, though a couple of clauses ('beyond just the name') are mildly redundant and the single long sentence could be split.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain returns, yet it still summarizes them helpfully. It covers input requirements, data provenance, sibling positioning, and the full payment/access model, leaving no obvious gap 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.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Basename or address'), so the schema already documents the input. The description only restates 'Required input: name' and adds no format or syntax detail (e.g. whether a bare label or fully-qualified name is expected), 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 verb and resource ('Resolves the complete Base identity behind an address or Basename') and enumerates the returned fields (address, avatar, description, website, social handles), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling address_trust ('Complements address-trust (verification) with the human context') and from the plain basename lookup ('beyond just the name').

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?

Gives a clear use case ('turn a counterparty address into a real profile') and positions itself relative to address_trust as a complement rather than a replacement. It stops short of stating explicit when-not-to-use conditions or a direct either/or rule against basename/ens_resolve, so it is clear context without full exclusion guidance.

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

All x402 Bazaar tools Inspect

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

Need Help?