mtrkr_resolve_name

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

No annotations provided, but the description adds context that it uses MegaNames on-chain contract resolution. It does not disclose read-only nature, rate limits, or error handling, but for a simple lookup it is adequate.

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?

Two sentences, no unnecessary words. Front-loads the core bidirectional resolution, then provides format example and mechanism. Every sentence adds value.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains what it does and how it works (on-chain contract). Missing details on output format, but for resolution it is likely clear enough.

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 the description adds little beyond repeating the parameter description. It gives examples and clarifies bidirectional resolution, but the schema already defines the input as .mega name or 0x address.

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?

Description clearly states the tool resolves a .mega name to a wallet address or vice versa, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on name resolution, which no other sibling does.

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?

Description implies when to use (for name/address resolution) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons with other tools like mtrkr_inspect_address.

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