List active validators on Chiliz Chain governance. Shows validator addresses and total CHZ delegated to each. Use this to find the best validator before staking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description briefly mentions output (addresses and delegated CHZ) but lacks detail on completeness, freshness, or authentication needs.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with action, no wasted words.
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 zero-parameter, simple list tool, description is sufficient; could hint at ordering or data freshness but not necessary.
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?
No parameters in schema; baseline of 4 applies as description adds no param info, but none needed.
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?
Describes specific verb 'list' and resource 'active validators on Chiliz Chain governance', distinguishes from sibling tools which cover different topics like prices and sentiment.
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?
States explicit use case 'find the best validator before staking' but does not mention when not to use or alternatives.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct aspect of fan token intelligence (e.g., briefing, DEX depth, whale flows, event reactions). Detailed descriptions and usage notes (e.g., 'USE THIS for ...') clearly differentiate overlapping areas like token_context vs briefing.
All tools follow a consistent 'tokenintel_<descriptive_name>' snake_case pattern. The prefix is uniform, and names like 'tokenintel_goal_direction_asymmetry' or 'tokenintel_dex_liquidity' are predictable and clear.
22 tools is on the higher side but justifiable given the broad scope (market, sports, DEX, social, whale flows, meta-tools). The server covers many complementary functions without feeling bloated, though a few tools could potentially be merged.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of fan token intelligence: overview (briefing), deep dive (token_context), prices, DEX analysis, whale flows, sports event reactions, social sentiment, health metrics, capital rotation, macro context, and even meta-tools (discover, describe, invoke). No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.