get_verification_linksGet third-party verification URLs for Blueprint validator on Validators.app, StakeWiz, Solana Beach, Solscan, JPool, SVT.one, and Jito steward dashboard. Verify every claim independently. Also includes Solana CLI commands for direct on-chain verification.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying the exact data returned (URLs for a list of platforms and CLI commands), and includes an instruction to 'Verify every claim independently.' It does not contradict annotations and sheds light on the tool's output scope, which is sufficient given the strong annotation coverage.
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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and lists all relevant verification sources and CLI commands without any redundant information. Every sentence adds meaningful detail, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
The tool has no parameters and no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool returns. It does so by naming the verification URL sources and mentioning CLI commands, which is sufficient for a simple informational tool. The description could be slightly more explicit about the format of returned URLs, but it is generally complete.
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 input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the tool's function rather than parameter details. No additional parameter explanation is 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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get third-party verification URLs for Blueprint validator' and enumerates specific platforms (Validators.app, StakeWiz, Solana Beach, Solscan, JPool, SVT.one, Jito steward dashboard). It also mentions including Solana CLI commands, making the purpose explicit and distinct from sibling tools like get_validator_info or verify_transaction.
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 provides a clear context for use—retrieving verification URLs and CLI commands for on-chain verification. The phrase 'Verify every claim independently' implies using this tool when independent verification is needed, giving practical usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between the 'stake' and 'create_stake_transaction' tools, as well as between 'unstake' and 'create_unstake_transaction', and 'withdraw' and 'withdraw_stake', which could cause confusion. However, descriptions clearly differentiate between automated and advanced manual use cases, mitigating ambiguity.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, with clear and descriptive naming (e.g., check_balance, get_staking_summary, register_webhook). There are no deviations in style or convention, making the set highly predictable and readable.
With 26 tools, the count is borderline high for the staking domain, potentially overwhelming for agents. While many tools provide specialized functionality, some could be consolidated (e.g., multiple transaction-building tools), making the set feel slightly heavy but still within a reasonable scope.
The toolset comprehensively covers the staking lifecycle, including address checking, balance queries, staking, unstaking, withdrawing, monitoring, simulation, and verification. There are no obvious gaps, and tools provide clear guidance and alternatives, ensuring agents can handle all necessary operations without dead ends.