resolve_ens_name

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

Discloses that it returns null for unregistered names and works via mainnet ENS resolver. Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds value beyond annotations without contradiction.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence front-loads the action and output, with no redundant or unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations, the description is fully sufficient: it explains what, how, and what to expect (null for unregistered). No additional context needed.

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 single parameter 'name' is implicitly described via the example 'vitalik.eth', clarifying the expected format. Schema coverage is 0%, but the example compensates, making the parameter's purpose clear.

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 verb 'resolve' and resource 'ENS name to Ethereum address', provides an example, and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like reverse_resolve_ens and resolve_token.

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 specifies it uses the mainnet ENS resolver, guiding usage context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the sibling list provides implicit guidance.

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