get_top_validatorsLargest Celestia validators by stake, live from Celenium: moniker, stake (TIA), commission, jailed status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many validators (default 20) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that data is live from Celenium and lists output fields, but does not explicitly state read-only nature, sorting details, or limitations beyond the stake ordering.
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, compact sentence front-loaded with key information. It lists exactly what the tool returns and the data source, with no filler or redundancy.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about the data source and included fields. However, it omits explicit return format and pagination behavior, leaving minor ambiguity.
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 fully documents the 'limit' parameter (min, max, default, description). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, relying entirely on the schema's high coverage.
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 identifies the tool as returning the largest Celestia validators by stake, with specific fields (moniker, stake, commission, jailed status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_top_namespaces or get_trends.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any 'use when' or 'not for' statements, leaving the agent to infer suitability from the name alone.
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.