List all BNS domains owned by a Stacks address, or check the configured wallet if no address is provided.
List all BNS domains owned by an address.
Tip: call earning_opportunities to see how to put your assets to work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | No | Stacks address to check. Uses configured wallet if not provided. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.77.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List all' implies a read-only bulk retrieval, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, result shape, authentication requirements, or limits. This is adequate for a simple listing tool but leaves clear gaps.
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 tight and front-loaded. The second sentence is an unrelated promotional tip for earning_opportunities and does not help an agent select or invoke this tool, so it does not fully 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 description sufficiently covers the core action and the schema covers the only parameter. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should say more about return values or read-only behavior to be fully 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 coverage is 100%, so the single optional 'address' parameter and its default wallet behavior are already fully documented in the schema. The description only adds that the address is the owner of the domains, which is useful but minimal.
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 ('List') and resource ('BNS domains') with ownership scope ('owned by an address'), which distinguishes it from forward and reverse BNS lookup siblings. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.
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 usage is implied: retrieve BNS domains owned by an address. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or comparison to related tools such as reverse_bns_lookup or get_bns_info. The tip to call earning_opportunities is an unrelated next step, not selection 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.