Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Radix Community

by com.genkipool.radix-community
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Read validator info

get_validator_state
Read-only

Reads one or several validators, the same profile the console's "Validator info" section shows: name, website, whether it is registered, in the active set, accepting delegated stake and online, its fee and any pending fee change, total stake with share and rank, uptime, estimated APY, operator stake, delegators, the value of one LSU, its largest stakers (LSU holders with share and XRD value), the stake unit and claim NFT resources, plus warnings (not registered, fee at 100 %, fee going up, node down). With an account, also its position: LSUs and their XRD value, withdrawals ready to claim and those still waiting for their epoch, and whether it owns the validator.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountNoOptional account: its stake, pending withdrawals and ownership
networkYesRadix network: "mainnet" (production) or "stokenet" (testnet)mainnet
validatorYesValidator component address (validator_…), or a list of up to 10

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / account
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional account: its stake, pending withdrawals and ownership",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / validator / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "items": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "maxItems": 10,
+    "minItems": 1,
+    "type": "array"
+  }
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / validator / description
      Previous value: -"Validator component address (validator_…)"New value: +"Validator component address (validator_…), or a list of up to 10"
    • removedInput schema / properties / validator / type
      Removed value: -"string"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, and since there is no output schema the description carries the burden of disclosure — it does so thoroughly, naming the warning cases (not registered, fee at 100 %, fee going up, node down) and the account-position fields. It stops short of error behavior (e.g. unknown address) or cost/latency notes.

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?

Two sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the payload enumeration confined to the second sentence. Given the absence of an output schema, every listed field earns its place rather than being filler.

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 3 params, no output schema, and only a readOnly annotation, the description supplies the full return-value picture an agent needs, including the optional account branch and warning conditions. It is only short on edge/error cases and on routing versus list_validators.

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%, so the schema already documents validator (address or list of up to 10), network enum, and the optional account. The description largely restates these; the only real addition is a slightly richer account semantic (withdrawals still waiting for their epoch, ownership). Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Reads one or several validators") and pins the scope to a known console view, plus enumerates the payload. It does not name or distinguish itself from the sibling list_validators, so an agent must infer that this is the per-address lookup versus the bulk list.

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: pass explicit validator addresses (up to 10) and optionally an account to enrich the result. There is no explicit when-to-use versus list_validators or list_validator_operations, and no stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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

All Radix Community 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