chainpeek: resolve an ENS name or address

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: latency range (0.2-1 s), pricing (USD 0.002), a free-tier rate limit (10 chain reads per IP per UTC day), the forward-verification semantics that flag spoofed reverse records via `verified`, and a prompt-injection warning about on-chain strings.

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?

Front-loads what the tool does, then orders sibling routing, input constraint, behavior, latency, cost, safety, and docs. Every sentence conveys distinct operational information with no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description fully covers inputs, direction of resolution, performance, pricing, rate limits, and security posture. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 both schema descriptions already say 'forward-resolve' and 'reverse-resolve', so the description's XOR and direction wording largely repeats the structured fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter meaning.

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 (resolve) plus resource (ENS name or address) and scopes it to Ethereum mainnet. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling get_ens_records, so an agent can choose between them without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative (get_ens_records) and the condition that selects it (text records), and states the `name` XOR `address` input constraint plus forward- vs reverse-resolution direction. It gives clear context but does not spell out when neither input is appropriate or other exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.