Check the registration price for a BNS domain name before you register it.
Get the registration price for 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 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It never states that this is a read-only/query operation, whether the price varies with name length or registration duration, what currency the price is denominated in, or whether fees are included — all material for a price 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 first sentence is well front-loaded and earns its place. The second sentence is a promotional tip about earning_opportunities that does not help an agent decide or invoke this tool, so it is filler rather than guidance.
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?
There is no output schema and only one parameter, so not much is needed, but for a pricing tool the response shape (currency, units, whether it is a fixed or length-tiered price) is left entirely unexplained, leaving a real gap for correct interpretation.
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?
Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already giving an example ('alice'). The description adds no constraint such as whether the bare name or full '.btc' name should be passed, so baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource: 'Get the registration price for a BNS domain name.' Clear what it returns, but it does not distinguish itself from near siblings such as get_bns_info, check_bns_availability, or preorder_bns_name, which an agent may confuse with pricing.
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 indication of when to use this versus check_bns_availability (check first) or preorder_bns_name (act second), nor any prerequisite that the name must be available. The only extra sentence is an unrelated promotion for earning_opportunities.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.