Get the current validators of a Subnet/L1 (paginated; use limit/offset)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max items to return (default: 50). Use with "offset" to page. | |
| offset | No | Number of items to skip from the start (default: 0). | |
| network | No | Avalanche network to query (default: mainnet) | |
| nodeIDs | No | Optional list of node IDs to filter by | |
| subnetID | No | The Subnet ID to query validators for (default: Primary Network) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination behavior, but does not state read-only nature (though implied by 'Get'), describe return value structure, or mention error conditions or rate limits. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond schema.
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 is front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words; every part is relevant.
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 the tool has 5 optional params and no output schema, the description only covers the basic purpose and pagination. It does not explain what the returned validators look like or clarify defaults (e.g., subnetID defaults to Primary Network) beyond what's in the schema. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description only mentions limit/offset for pagination, which is already in the schema. It does not add any extra meaning to parameters like subnetID or network defaults.
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 gets current validators for a Subnet/L1, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like platform_get_pending_validators (pending vs current) and platform_get_validators_at (historical).
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 implies usage for current validator queries but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like platform_get_pending_validators or platform_get_validators_at. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
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.
