Resolve Names

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It enumerates the supported naming services, which is useful, but says nothing about what happens to unresolvable names (skip, error, null), whether the call is all-or-nothing, which chain it resolves on, or whether any network/latency costs apply.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the supported-domain list trailing it. Nothing is padded, though the domain enumeration reads as a bare list rather than integrated guidance.

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 resolution tool there is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should at least hint at the return shape (parallel address array, ordering, failure handling). It covers the input domain well but leaves the output contract unspecified.

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 single parameter is documented as "Names to resolve." The description adds the supported name syntaxes (ENS/subdomains, Basenames, .wei, .gwei, .mega), which goes modestly beyond the schema but not deeply into format expectations. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names to EVM addresses) and clarifies the input is multiple user-provided names. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling resolve_name, which is the singular counterpart, so an agent must infer the batch-vs-single split on its own.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative resolve_name. The only usage signal is implicit in the enumerations of supported name types and the plural "multiple names".

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