Skip to main content
Glama

provider_resolve_name

Resolve Ethereum Name Service (ENS) domain names into their associated Ethereum addresses using the MCP Crypto Wallet EVM server, enabling easy address lookup for blockchain interactions.

Instructions

Resolve an ENS name to an address

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe ENS name to resolve

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function that implements the logic to resolve an ENS name to an address using the current provider.
    export const resolveNameHandler = async (input: any): Promise<ToolResultSchema> => {
      try {
        if (!input.name) {
          return createErrorResponse("ENS name is required");
        }
    
        const provider = getProvider();
        if (!provider) {
          return createErrorResponse("Provider is required to resolve ENS name, please set the provider URL");
        }
        const address = await provider.resolveName(input.name);
    
        return createSuccessResponse(
        address ? `ENS name resolved successfully
          Name: ${input.name}
          Address: ${address}
        ` : "Could not resolve this ENS name");
      } catch (error) {
        return createErrorResponse(`Failed to resolve ENS name: ${(error as Error).message}`);
      }
    };
  • The input schema definition for the provider_resolve_name tool in the tools array.
    {
      name: "provider_resolve_name",
      description: "Resolve an ENS name to an address",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          name: { type: "string", description: "The ENS name to resolve" }
        },
        required: ["name"]
      }
    },
  • src/tools.ts:599-599 (registration)
    Maps the tool name 'provider_resolve_name' to its handler function resolveNameHandler in the handlers dictionary.
    "provider_resolve_name": resolveNameHandler,
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('resolve') but doesn't cover critical aspects like error handling (e.g., for invalid names), network dependencies, rate limits, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence: 'Resolve an ENS name to an address.' It is front-loaded with the core action, has zero wasted words, and efficiently communicates the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration. This makes it easy to parse and understand quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (involving ENS resolution), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the resolved address output looks like (e.g., Ethereum address format), potential errors, or dependencies on network state. For a tool in this context, more detail is needed to ensure proper usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'name' documented as 'The ENS name to resolve.' The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, such as format examples (e.g., 'example.eth') or validation rules. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Resolve an ENS name to an address.' It specifies the verb ('resolve') and resource ('ENS name'), making the action explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like provider_lookup_address (which performs reverse resolution), leaving room for improvement in sibling distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like provider_lookup_address (for reverse resolution) or other ENS-related operations, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. This lack of comparative guidance limits its effectiveness in tool selection.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/dcSpark/mcp-cryptowallet-evm'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server