Resolve an IBC denom hash to its trace path and base denom, revealing the token's origin when known. Use this to identify the native chain and denomination behind any ibc/... hash.
Resolve an IBC denom hash to its trace (path + base denom) when known.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| denom | Yes | ibc/... hash or base denom |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints at conditional behavior ('when known') but does not state what happens for unknown hashes, whether this is a read-only operation, or what errors or empty results look like. The description is thin on behavioral detail beyond the basic lookup.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It efficiently communicates the action, the input, and the output format in one pass, which is ideal for a simple lookup tool.
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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the core return format (path + base denom). It does not address behavior for unknown hashes, nor does it reconcile the base denom input case. The missing failure semantics and input mismatch leave the description slightly incomplete for a fully correct invocation.
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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. However, the description narrows the accepted input to 'IBC denom hash' while the schema explicitly allows 'ibc/... hash or base denom'. This contraction could mislead an agent into thinking base denoms are not valid, subtracting value rather than adding 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 states a specific verb ('Resolve'), a clear resource ('IBC denom hash'), and the expected output ('trace (path + base denom)'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, none of which relate to IBC denom tracing. The 'when known' qualifier is slightly ambiguous but does not obscure the core purpose.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. 'When known' is a behavioral condition, not usage guidance. With a sibling list present, the lack of differentiation is a meaningful gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.