ens_bulkResolve up to 50 ENS names to addresses and profile records in one call, or reverse-resolve addresses, with primary-name checks for bulk identity lookups.
Resolve up to 50 ENS names (address + avatar/url/twitter/github records, primary-name check) or reverse-resolve addresses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| inputs | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and external-lookup profile is covered. The description adds useful detail on the 50-item cap and the specific records fetched (avatar/url/twitter/github, primary-name check), but says nothing about behavior on invalid or unresolvable inputs or latency of an on-chain network call.
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?
One front-loaded sentence that states the action, the cap, the returned data and the reverse mode, with no filler. Every clause earns 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?
There is no output schema, but the description summarizes the return payload (address plus avatar/url/twitter/github records and primary-name check) and the input bound. For a one-parameter bulk tool this is nearly sufficient; only error/partial-failure behavior for unresolvable inputs is 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?
Schema coverage is 0% and the single 'inputs' array has no per-property description, so the description carries the load. It compensates well by stating the array holds ENS names or addresses and is capped at 50 — element type and limit are otherwise absent from the schema. It does not clarify whether mixed name/address arrays are allowed.
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?
Specific verb and resource: 'Resolve up to 50 ENS names ... or reverse-resolve addresses', including the exact scope cap and returned record types. It is a clear, self-contained statement, though there are no ENS-related siblings to differentiate against, so the sibling-routing element of a 5 is absent.
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 its usage (bulk ENS forward/reverse resolution) but never states when to use this versus alternatives or any prerequisites, such as whether names must be normalized or what happens to unresolved entries. Context is implied rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.