Resolve Name

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the RPC fallback order and the set of supported naming systems, which is genuinely useful behavior beyond the schema. It does not describe failure behavior (error vs. null on unresolvable names) or any rate limits, leaving the read semantics partially covered.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by supported inputs and resolution order. Every sentence carries information; no filler or restatement of the title.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, an agent still needs to know the return shape and failure mode. The description implies an EVM address return but never states it explicitly nor explains what happens when a name cannot be resolved, and it omits any differentiation from 'resolve_names'.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already gives concrete examples (vitalik.eth, name.base.eth, name.wei, name.gwei, name.mega). The description adds the mapping of suffixes to naming services, which is mild added value over the schema, so baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve a user-provided WalletChan-supported name to an EVM address.' That is unambiguous. However, the sibling tool 'resolve_names' (plural) is nearly identical in name, and the description does nothing to distinguish this singular tool from that sibling, which is a notable omission in a crowded namespace.

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 gives useful context — it enumerates supported name services (ENS, Basenames, WNS, GNS, MegaNames) and the lookup order (MCP RPC overrides, then WalletChan default RPCs) — but never says when to prefer this tool over 'resolve_names' or what to do if resolution fails. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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