Look up detailed information about a BNS domain name such as alice.btc to verify ownership, resolve naming details, and understand its Bitcoin identity data.
Get detailed information about a BNS domain name.
Tip: call earning_opportunities to see how to put your assets to work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | BNS name to lookup (e.g., 'alice.btc') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.77.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not whether the lookup is on-chain/live or cached, what 'detailed information' includes (owner, resolver, expiry, price), or what happens for unregistered names. The second sentence is an upsell, not behavioral context.
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 core sentence is appropriately short and front-loaded, but the appended 'Tip' about earning_opportunities is filler that does not help an agent invoke this tool and dilutes the definition.
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 single-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema, the essentials are present. But with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least sketch what 'detailed information' contains; as written, an agent cannot anticipate the return shape.
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 100% and the single 'name' parameter is documented with an example ('alice.btc'), so the schema does the work. The description adds no format or normalization guidance beyond it, which is the baseline expectation.
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?
States a specific verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('BNS domain name'), so an agent knows this is a read/lookup. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like lookup_bns_name or get_bns_price, leaving ambiguity about which resolving tool to pick.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus lookup_bns_name, reverse_bns_lookup, or list_user_domains. The only guidance is a promotional tip to call earning_opportunities, which is unrelated to the task of looking up a domain.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.