Check whether a BNS domain name is available before registering it, so you can avoid failed registration attempts.
Check if a BNS domain name is available for registration.
Tip: call earning_opportunities to see how to put your assets to work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | BNS name to check (e.g., 'alice') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.77.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only lookup but never states that it has no side effects or cost, whether it queries the chain or a cache, or how it behaves for invalid or already-taken names.
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 first sentence is appropriately terse and front-loaded. The second sentence is an unrelated promotional pointer to earning_opportunities that does not help an agent select or invoke this tool, so it does not earn 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?
The tool is simple and the single parameter is well documented, but there is no output schema and the description does not say what comes back (boolean, price, or registration details). One clause on the return shape would make it complete.
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?
With one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the 'name' string and its example ('alice'). The description adds nothing about format, whether a namespace suffix is accepted, or whether it is case-sensitive, so it sits at the baseline.
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 and resource: checking whether a BNS domain name is available for registration. That is clear and distinct in intent from siblings like get_bns_price or register_bns_name, but the description never names those siblings or explicitly positions itself in that lifecycle.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a pre-registration check, but the description offers no explicit when-to-use, no named alternatives (e.g., lookup_bns_name for existing names), and no prerequisites. The appended 'earning_opportunities' tip is promotional cross-sell rather than guidance for this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.