crypto.ens-resolve

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a live lookup on Ethereum mainnet, returns both forward and reverse resolutions, and includes text records like avatar and email. It also explains the limitation of sandboxed agents, adding behavioral context. Missing details on rate limits or authentication, but adequate given simplicity.

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 with no redundant information. It front-loads the core functionality and uses a colon to separate the summary from details. Every part is informative and earned its place.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how to use it (forward and reverse), what additional data is returned, and why it's needed (sandbox limitation). No critical information seems 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 only parameter 'query' is described in the schema as 'ENS name or 0x address.' The description enriches this by providing an example (vitalik.eth) and explaining that passing an address triggers reverse resolution. It also lists the additional text records returned. This adds significant meaning beyond the minimal schema description.

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 tool resolves ENS names to addresses on Ethereum mainnet and performs reverse lookups. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like crypto.address-validate by specifying ENS-specific functionality and mentioning additional text records. The verb 'resolve' combined with resource 'ENS' is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides context for when to use this tool by stating that on-chain lookup agents cannot perform this from a sandbox. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it. The implication is clear for agents needing ENS data, but explicit exclusion of other crypto tools would improve clarity.

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