List subdomains (child names) of a WAVE name on Radiant blockchain. Handles offset pagination, noting entries may shift if new subdomains are registered between calls.
List subdomains (child names) of a WAVE name. PAGINATION CAVEAT: offset-based — entries shift if new subdomains are registered between calls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset | |
| parent_name | Yes | Parent WAVE name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It earns credit for the non-obvious pagination caveat: offset-based pagination can shift entries when new subdomains are registered, which is actionable and not visible from the schema. It does not cover return format or error behavior, so it stops short of a 5.
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 exactly two sentences with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, and the pagination warning is isolated in a way that makes it hard to miss.
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?
The core action and the pagination caveat are clear, but there is no output schema and the description does not specify the return shape, ordering, or whether 'subdomains' means immediate children or all descendants. This is a noticeable gap for an agent deciding whether the tool returns what it needs.
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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the general relationship to a WAVE name; the baseline of 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 opens with a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('subdomains (child names) of a WAVE name'). This clearly distinguishes it from related wave tools like radiant_resolve_wave_name or radiant_check_wave_available, which serve different purposes.
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 intended use case is implied by the action and resource, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over sibling tools or when not to use it. There is no alternative routing or precondition guidance, so the agent must infer usage from the name and first sentence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.