resolve_ens

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

Description mentions bidirectional resolution and network support, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication. Without annotations, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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?

Single sentence conveys core functionality efficiently with no extraneous 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?

Lacks output schema, so description should hint at return format (e.g., address or ENS name). Minimal info on behavior across networks or failure cases makes it slightly incomplete for a bidirectional resolution tool.

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?

Adds value beyond schema by clarifying query can be ENS name or address for reverse resolution, and network defaults to server's configured network. Schema coverage is 100% but description enriches understanding.

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 bidirectional resolution of ENS names and addresses, which is specific and distinct from sibling tools that focus on native blockchain operations like get_block, send_native, etc.

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?

Implicitly clarifies usage for ENS resolution on supported networks, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Sibling tools are unrelated, so no alternative guidance needed.

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