resolve_name

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: the data comes from a static registry (so it may be stale). It also states the return value (address and metadata). However, it does not enumerate what metadata is returned or mention possible errors, but these gaps are minor for a simple resolver.

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 concise: two sentences, with the main purpose in the first sentence and the alternative in the second. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the action. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete: it states inputs, outputs, and usage boundary. It slightly lacks detail on the exact shape of the metadata returned, but this is acceptable for a straightforward resolver and the description is otherwise self-contained.

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%: the only parameter 'name' is already described in the schema with an example. The tool description repeats the example ('example.algo') and the basic purpose, but adds little new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Resolve an Algorand name'), the resource (e.g., 'example.algo'), and the output ('to its address and metadata'). It also distinguishes itself by specifying 'from the static registry', differentiating it from sibling tools like reverse_resolve_address or search_names.

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?

Explicitly provides usage guidance: 'For live resolution, use UluCoreMCP or NFDomains API.' This tells the agent when NOT to use this tool and names concrete alternatives. It also implies the appropriate context (static registry) versus live lookups.

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