resolve_name

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it mentions server-side caching (1 hour) and cost ($0.001 USDC). It also notes that only two registries are currently supported, setting correct expectations.

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 description is extremely concise with three sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the function, giving usage examples, and providing operational details (registries, caching, cost). No wasted words.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains purpose, input format, supported services, caching behavior, and cost, covering all relevant aspects.

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?

The schema already covers the only parameter (name) with 100% description coverage. The description adds value by providing example values ('vitalik.eth', 'bonfida.sol') and clarifying the format, which goes beyond the schema's generic description.

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?

The description clearly states the tool resolves human-readable names across blockchains, specifying supported registries (ENS, SNS) and giving examples ('vitalik.eth', 'bonfida.sol'). It distinguishes from siblings like anchor_hash or decode_calldata, which are unrelated.

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 description indicates when to use this tool (cross-chain name resolution) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. However, the context is clear enough for an AI agent to decide appropriately.

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