Look up a validator by node ID — stake, uptime, delegation info.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nodeId | Yes | Node ID (e.g. NodeID-...) | |
| network | No | mainnet | |
| subnetId | No | Subnet ID (default: Primary Network) | 11111111111111111111111111111111LpoYY |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only lists the output categories (stake, uptime, delegation info) but does not mention return format, error handling, rate limits, network/Subnet behavior, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety profile.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the em-dash efficiently introduces the output focus. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not mention what happens for invalid node IDs, whether network-specific data affects results, or how delegation info is structured. Comparable tools in the calibration set with similar complexity receive higher scores only when they add operational context.
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 coverage is 67% (nodeId and subnetId have descriptions, network does not). The description adds only general output categories and does not clarify the meaning of the network or subnetId parameters. It does not compensate for the missing network parameter description, so the added value beyond schema is minimal.
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 uses the specific verb 'Look up' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a validator by node ID', while also listing the information categories (stake, uptime, delegation info). It distinguishes itself from sibling lookup tools (address, chain, subnet, transaction) by focusing on validator lookup, so no ambiguity remains.
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 regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives such as platform_get_current_validators or platform_get_validators_at. The description implies the use case (lookup by node ID) but does not explicitly state exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools.
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.
Many tools are redundant due to compatibility aliases (avalanche_docs_* vs docs_*, blockchain_get_* vs onchain_lookup) and overlapping functionality (chain_stats vs onchain_query, onchain_activity vs onchain_query ops, acp_list vs info_acps). Agents may struggle to select the correct tool when multiple appear to serve the same purpose, despite descriptions clarifying aliases.
Naming patterns are inconsistent: some tools use noun_verb (acp_list, docs_fetch), some use verb_noun (build_plan), and others use prefixes like platform_get_, info_get_, and onchain_. The mix of styles (snake_case, noun phrases, verb phrases) makes it hard to predict tool names.
With 48 tools, the count is high and inflated by compatibility aliases and granular platform_get_* wrappers. The scope spans multiple domains (docs, on-chain, platform API, ACPs, console), which could be better modularized. Many tools are trivial variants (e.g., platform_get_block vs platform_get_block_by_height) adding unnecessary bulk.
The server provides thorough read-only coverage for Avalanche: docs search, ACP management, on-chain lookups, indexed stats, platform API getters, and console flow guidance. While there is no transaction submission (likely intentional), the surface covers most queries a developer would need, with minor gaps like detailed token transfer history.
