Aether testnet wallet

get_miner_status

Check whether an address will become a validator when this epoch ends: its registered consensus key, work this epoch, rank among eligible miners, blocks (and estimated seconds) until the validator set is picked, whether it's a validator now, and its escrowed mining rewards. The address is required. Read-only; every field is as of one block height.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	Aether account address (aether1...); required, this server holds no key

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`rank`	No	1-based position among eligible miners by work; absent if not eligible
`epoch`	Yes
`banned`	Yes	permanently banned for equivocation
`escrow`	Yes
`height`	Yes	every field is as of this block
`address`	Yes
`onTrack`	Yes	would be picked if the epoch ended now; only ever true under top_k_by_work, since a random draw isn't known in advance
`eligible`	Yes	can be picked when this epoch ends: has work this epoch, a registered consensus key, and no ban
`topKSize`	Yes
`workShare`	No	this address's share of all eligible work this epoch, 0 to 1; under beacon_weighted_sample it drives the odds of being drawn
`selectionRule`	Yes	top_k_by_work: the topKSize eligible miners with the most work are picked; beacon_weighted_sample: topKSize are drawn at random, weighted by work
`workThisEpoch`	Yes
`eligibleMiners`	Yes
`activeValidator`	Yes	in the validator set right now
`notEligibleBecause`	No	any of no_work_this_epoch, no_consensus_key, banned
`registeredConsensusKey`	Yes	a consensus public key is registered for this address; without one, mining never makes it a validator

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explicitly says 'Read-only' and that 'every field is as of one block height,' covering mutation safety and snapshot consistency. It does not mention authentication requirements or rate limits, so it is not exhaustive, but it adds useful behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded and the sentences are tight. The long enumeration of returned fields is somewhat redundant because an output schema exists, but it helps an agent understand what 'miner status' includes. Still efficient overall.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple read-only query, one required parameter, and an output schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It covers purpose, required input, read-only nature, and block-height consistency. Nothing essential is missing.

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% and the single address parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description only restates 'The address is required,' which adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Check') and resource (whether an address will become a validator), then enumerates the status fields returned. It clearly distinguishes the tool from account/balance/transaction siblings by domain. An agent can tell what question this tool answers without inspecting the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description supplies clear context: use it to check validator eligibility for an address at epoch end. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tools cover different resources, so no alternative route is apparent. Clear context without exclusions merits a 4.

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

All Aether testnet wallet tools Inspect

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.