get_namespaceDetail for a single Celestia namespace by its namespace_id (hex — get one from get_top_namespaces): size, blob count, last activity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| namespace_id | Yes | Namespace id (hex), e.g. from get_top_namespaces |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns size, blob count, and last activity, which conveys a read-only nature and the kind of data to expect. However, it does not mention error behavior, such as what happens if the namespace_id is invalid or not found, nor does it explicitly state that the operation is read-only.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes essential context (hex format and source for the ID). Every phrase earns its place, with no redundant or vague wording.
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 getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it names the parameter, its format, and the main return fields. It could be slightly more complete by stating the response format or explicitly noting not-found behavior, but these are minor gaps for such a straightforward 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?
The schema description for namespace_id already explains that it is a hex string and suggests get_top_namespaces as a source, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description repeats this context (hex, get one from get_top_namespaces) but does not add substantially new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool's purpose: to retrieve details for a single Celestia namespace by namespace_id. It specifies the resource (namespace) and the scope (single), and distinguishes it from siblings like get_top_namespaces by focusing on one namespace's detail. The mention of fields (size, blob count, last activity) adds clarity.
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 practical guidance by telling users to get a namespace_id from get_top_namespaces, which implies a workflow for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context strongly implies it is for granular detail on a specific namespace.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of Celestia data: daily briefs, metric history, namespace details, network state, full reports, signals, top entities, trends, listing, and search. There is minimal overlap, and descriptions clarify the differences.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lowercase snake_case (e.g., get_daily_brief, list_reports, search_reports). No mixing of conventions.
11 tools is well-scoped for a blockchain intelligence server, covering current state, historical data, lists, and search without being overwhelming or too sparse.
The tool surface provides comprehensive coverage for querying Celestia network status, historical metrics, anomalies, top namespaces/validators, and report retrieval. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose of intelligence gathering.