Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

BitBasic

by com.bitbasic
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Compare validators

compare-validators
Read-onlyIdempotent

Two to four validators on one network side by side: status, stake, uptime, commission and what their delegators earn a year, as BitBasic's compare page shows them.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "network": "<network>",
      "addresses": "<addresses>"
    },
    "name": "compare-validators"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
networkYesA network slug from list-networks.
addressesYes2 to 4 validator addresses on that network, as BitBasic lists them.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what the agent cannot get from annotations: the set of fields returned (status, stake, uptime, commission, annual delegator earnings), which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of covering behavior for invalid addresses or partial failures.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One front-loaded sentence that leads with the cardinality and network scoping, then lists the compared fields. No filler, no repetition of the title, and every clause carries information an agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With only two parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does the one thing it must: tell the agent what comes back. Remaining gaps are minor edge-case behavior (invalid address handling, ordering of results) that would only marginally improve call correctness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with minItems 2 / maxItems 4 and a network slug already documented, so the schema carries most of the burden. The description reinforces the 2-4 bound and the single-network constraint and connects addresses to how BitBasic lists them, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond that. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource (validators) and the operation (side-by-side comparison of 2-4 on one network), and enumerates the compared fields: status, stake, uptime, commission, and annual delegator earnings. That is specific enough to distinguish it from single-validator siblings such as validator-details, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied by the cardinality constraint ('two to four validators on one network') and the mention of BitBasic's compare page. There is no statement of when to prefer this over validator-details or find-validators, and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the network/address pairing.

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

All BitBasic toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources